* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [ AGENDA 			PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 			CITY OF LEANDER, TEXAS 			 			Pat Bryson Municipal Hall 			201 North Brushy Street - Leander, Texas 			  			Thursday - May 27, 2021 at 7:00 PM 			 		 	  ]
          [00:00:09]
          GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. 
          [1. Call to Order.]
AND WELCOME TO THE CITY OF LEANDER PLANNING, ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR THURSDAY, MAY 27TH, 2021. 
          THE TIME IS 7:02 PM. 
          AND LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT, UM, AND NEXT UP WILL BE THE DIRECTOR'S 
          [3. Director’s report to the Planning & Zoning Commission on actions taken by the City Council at the May 20, 2021 meeting]
REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY COUNCIL. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          I'M REPORTING ON ITEMS THAT WERE REVIEWED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 20TH. 
          AND THESE ARE ITEMS THAT WERE, UM, PRESENTED BY THE COMMISSION. 
          UM, THE FIRST ITEM IS, UH, THE PUB THAT WAS AT THE INTERSECTION OF 29 AND RONALD REAGAN. 
          UM, THE CITY COUNCIL DID TABLE ACTION ON THAT ITEM AND THEY POSTPONED IT TO JUNE 3RD. 
          UM, THE APPLICANT DID REQUEST ANOTHER DELAY. 
          SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE ON THE LAST MEETING IN JUNE SO THEY CAN TRY TO MAKE SOME MORE UPDATES. 
          UM, THE, THE COUNCIL WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THE MULTIFAMILY USE COMPONENTS, SO THEY WERE TRYING TO CHANGE IT TO A LOWER DENSITY. 
          SO WE'LL SEE WHAT THEY COME BACK WITH. 
          UM, THE NEXT ITEM WAS THE ENCLAVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. 
          THAT ONE WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL FOR THE FIRST READING AND THEN THE LEANDER HEIGHTS, MAYA PUD. 
          IT WAS ALSO APPROVED. 
          THEY DID REDUCE THE DENSITY OF THAT PROJECT FROM 40 UNITS TO 32 UNITS, AND THEY ALSO REMOVED THE WAIVER TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO I THINK THEY ADDRESSED A FEW OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE COMMISSION HAD. 
          UM, THE NEXT ITEM IS THE QUICK TRIP MINOR PAD. 
          THE COUNCIL DID APPROVE THAT ITEM AND THEY ALSO APPROVE THE PEC HERO WAY, SUBSTATION PUD, AND THAT IS ALL FROM OUR REPORT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MS. GRIFFIN. 
          UM, NEXT UP WILL BE A REVIEW OF OUR MEETING PROTOCOL AND CITIZENS' COMMENTS. 
          UH, PEOPLE THAT HAVE FILLED OUT A CARD WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK AND, UH, FITS ON AN AGENDA ITEM. 
          WE'LL CALL YOU WHEN THAT ITEM COMES UP FOR A DISCUSSION. 
          SO NEXT UP 
          [ CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION]
WE'LL MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          ITEM SIX THROUGH EIGHT AS WRITTEN MOTION TO APPROVE A SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COSGRAVE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAN. 
          ALL IN FAVOR PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          NEXT UP TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING. 
          [9. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider action regarding Zoning Case 20-TOD-Z-010 to amend the current zoning of T6 Urban Core within the PUD/TOD (Planned Unit Development/Transit Oriented Development) to create the Leander Marketplace PUD (Planned Unit Development) with the base zoning district GC-3-A (General Commercial); and to adopt Subdivision Cases 20-TOD-CP-002 Concept Plan and 20-TOD-PP-010 Preliminary Plat on a portion of a parcel of land approximately 8.459 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcel R031600; and generally located to the northeast of Hero Way and US 183 Leander, Williamson County, Texas.  	Discuss and consider action regarding Zoning Case 20-TOD-Z-010 and Subdivision Cases 20-TOD-CP-002, 20-TOD-PP-010 as described above. Staff Presentation 	Applicant Presentation 	Open Public Hearing 	Close Public Hearing 	Discussion 	Consider Action]
WE'RE GOING TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING ZONING CASE 20 T O D Z ZERO ONE ZERO. 
          TO AMEND THE CURRENT ZONING OF T SIX, URBAN CORE WITHIN THE P U D T O D TO CREATE THE LAND OR MARKETPLACE POD, WHERE THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT OF GC, A GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND ADOPT THE SUBDIVISION CASES. 
          20 T O D C P ZERO ZERO TWO CONCEPT PLAN AND 20 T O D P P ZERO ONE ZERO PRELIMINARY PLAT ON ONE PORT PORTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND, APPROXIMATELY 8.459 ACRES IN SIZE, AND GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HERO AWAY IN U S ONE 83, LEANDER WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. 
          OKAY, MR. CHAIR, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I'M GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS ITEM, UM, PER CITY CHARTER, IF THERE'S A PERCEIVED CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT WILL RECUSE. 
          I I'D LIKE TO MENTION THAT, UM, THE PERCEIVED OR THE CONFLICT WOULD BE THAT I'VE, I'VE MET WITH MR. HUGHES, THE DEVELOPER AS A PART OF THE CAMPAIGN. 
          ALTHOUGH WE DIDN'T DISCUSS THIS, I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE ANY PERCEIVED CONFLICT. 
          SO I'M GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE'LL SEND ELLEN FOR YOU STAFF PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU, MICHAEL CHANESKI PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          SO THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE ZONING PROCESS AND THE FIRST AND SECOND STEP IN THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS, EXCUSE ME, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATED ZONING DISTRICT OF THEIR PROPERTY IN ORDER TO DEVELOP UNDER THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE. 
          PART OF THIS REQUEST WOULD RE REMOVE THE PROPERTY FROM THE TOD. 
          UH, THIS REQUEST ALSO INCLUDES APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT PLAN AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AS PART OF THE PUD, UH, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED AN AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BACK IN MARCH OF 2020 TO ALLOW PROPERTY OWNERS THE OPTION TO REMOVE THEIR PROPERTY FROM THE SMART CODE AND DEVELOP UNDER THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE. 
          DURING THE COURSE OF THE REVIEW FOR THIS PROJECT, UH, IN ORDINANCE INTERPRETATION, DETERMINED THAT THE PUD ZONING REQUESTS MAY OPERATE AS A COMPLETE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. 
          UH, THIS STANDARD HAS NOW BEEN UPDATED AND THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED TO CLARIFY THIS PROCESS. 
          UH, THE UPDATED ORDINANCE DOES REQUIRE A SEPARATE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          AND SINCE THIS APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED, BEFORE THAT CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE, THE PREVIOUS STANDARDS WOULD STILL APPLY. 
          SO I'M GOING TO GO TO THE AERIAL REAL QUICK. 
          UH, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF HERE AWAY AND, UH, US ONE 83. 
          [00:05:01]
SO RIGHT HERE, IT'S JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE FORUM SHOPPING CENTER, WHICH IS ANCHORED BY HEB IT'S SOUTH OF THE CAP METRO STATION AND, UH, SOUTH OF THE FUTURE NORTH DEVELOPMENT, UH, WHICH WILL BE JUST WHERE THIS MAP IS KIND OF BLOCKING, UH, TO THE SOUTH IS UNDER REVIEW MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE. 
          UH, THE PROPERTY DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY SIGNIFICANT TREE COVER. 
          THERE ARE SOME TREES, UH, ALONG US, ONE 83, WHICH THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A LANDSCAPE BUFFER. 
          SO THIS PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED BACK IN 2005. 
          AND IN 2005 IS WHEN, UH, THE ZONING WAS ESTABLISHED, UH, UNDER THE SMART CODE FOR THIS PROPERTY IN SEPTEMBER OF 2019, THE APPLICANT HELD A DEVELOPMENT MEETING STAFF AT THIS TIME, OR SINCE THAT TIME, THE MULTI-FAMILY USE COMPONENT WAS REMOVED FROM THEIR REQUEST. 
          UM, AND SOME OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THEN WERE OPTIONAL STREET TREES AND OPTIONAL SMART CODE. 
          THIS APPLICATION FOR THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE, WHICH REQUIRED THE APPLICANT SHOULD REACH OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET. 
          UM, SO THEY DID NOT HAVE TO DO THAT AS PART OF THEIR REQUEST, UH, THIS PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THAT'S PART OF THE, THEIR PUD, UH, REQUESTS, THE FOLLOWING, UH, HIGHER STANDARDS, A SIGNAGE PLAN AND TYPE A ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENT, 90% MASONRY PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, A MINIMUM OF A 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD, RIGHT OVER HERE, ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY WITH A MINIMUM OF THREE INCH CALIPER TREES. 
          AND THE FOLLOWING WAIVERS ARE A REQUEST TO USE PYLON SIGNS AND, UM, REDUCTION OF DRIVEWAY, SPACING FOR ACCESS ONTO THEIR SITE. 
          I I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          AND I THINK WE DO HAVE OUR APPLICANTS AVAILABLE OVER THE TELEPHONE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DOES, DOES THE, APP'S GOING TO HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THIS OR NO GOOD EVENING, MRS. TANYA 14 GRUBER. 
          UH, I'M AN, UH, AN URBAN PLANNER WITH STANTEC AND I DON'T REALLY HAVE TOO MUCH TO ADD TO MICHAEL'S, UH, PRESENTATION. 
          THE ONLY THING I WANT TO POINT OUT WAS THAT WE DID WORK WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT TO SUPPLY, UH, OR TO INCLUDE A 10 FOOT MINIMUM TAPE PATH THAT CONNECTS TO THE INTERSECTION OF HERO WAY ALONG THE RAILROAD, UM, ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY. 
          SO THAT WOULD EXTEND TO THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING THAT 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY. 
          THAT'LL PROVIDE SHADE FOR PEDESTRIANS THAT USE THAT PATH AND ALL, ALL THE STREET TREES THAT WERE REQUIRED TO INSTALL, UM, WILL BE INSTALLED AT A THREE INCH MINIMUM CALIPER WHERE I BELIEVE THE TWO INCH CALIBER IS REQUIRED WHEN WE CAME IN. 
          UM, I THINK THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL RESPOND TO THE CURRENT MARKET DEMAND IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA AND REFLECTS THE DEVELOPMENT ACROSS YOUR WAY AND PROVIDES A QUALITY DEVELOPMENT TO SERVE  RESIDENTS' NEEDS. 
          UM, ONE OF THE THINGS ROBIN AND MICHAEL FOR HELPING US THROUGH THE PROCESS, ASSEMBLING THIS, UH, DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO WITH THAT, I WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THIS TIME WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. 
          IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE PHONE OR IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK ON THE SIDE OF THEM? OKAY. 
          IF NOT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE TO THE DISCUSSION PHASE, UH, COMMISSIONER COSPER. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, MR. YOU HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. 
          HOW MANY SURFACE PARKING SPACES IS INVOLVED OR INVOLVED? UM, SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          SO THE SURFACE PARKING WOULD BE DETERMINED ONCE WE GET THE SITE DEVELOPMENT, BUT THESE ARE ALL GONNA BE, UM, YOU KNOW, GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND IT'S ALL, ALL THE PARKING'S GOING TO BE SURFACE PARKING. 
          I MEAN, THERE'S STAFF PARKING, RIGHT? RIGHT. 
          LIKE WE REQUIRE AN APARTMENT, RIGHT. 
          SO IF THEY'RE DOING COMPOSITE ZONING, THEN IT WOULD BE, UM, SURFACE PARKING LOTS. 
          OKAY. 
          [00:10:01]
UM, THAT REALLY IS, IS, UM, A CONCERN FOR ME. 
          UM, I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO DEVELOP UNDER, UNDER COMPOSITE ZONING WHEN THEY HAVE THE OPTION. 
          I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE INCENTIVE WOULD EVER BE TO DO A SMART CODE BECAUSE EVERYBODY AROUND ME IS DEVELOPING UNDER HER, UNDER HER COMPOSITE ZONING. 
          WHY WOULD I EVER HOLD MYSELF TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD? UM, I THINK IT'S, IT'S A, AN INDICTMENT OF THE COUNCIL WHERE THAT THEY WOULDN'T JUST GET RID OF THE SMART CODE IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. 
          UM, SO, UH, I HAVE, IF THERE'S ANY PLACE AND I'M NOT, I'M NOT, PROTIO D I'M NOT, I'M NOT MARRIED TO SMART CODE. 
          UM, I JUST THINK THAT IF YOU HAVE IT, IF THERE'S ANY PLACE IT GOES, IT'S WHERE IT IS. 
          AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          MR. HAMPTON, IS THERE A REAL QUICK MIKE? IS THERE ANY, SO THERE'S LIKE AN ENTRANCE RIGHT THERE, RIGHT OFF OF HERO WAY. 
          AND THEN THERE'S TWO MORE ON THE MARK. 
          THREE MORE ON THE BACKEND, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          SO THE ONE RIGHT HERE THEY'RE PROPOSING AND THEN, UH, ONE, TWO AND THREE OVER HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN FOR THE APPLICANT, IS THERE ANY, UM, BECAUSE IT WAS A RESTAURANT, CORRECT? OR THAT'S THE IDEA OF USERS JUST YET? IS IT JUST THE ZONING AND THEY'RE PLANNING TO ALLOW FUTURE USERS TO COME IN FOR EACH OF THESE LOTS? UM, SO IT COULD BE RESTAURANTS, IT COULD BE A RETAIL OFFICE, BUT THE APPLICANT MIGHT HAVE AN IDEA OF POTENTIAL USERS. 
          UM, TANYA, DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA? SURE. 
          UM, WE'RE ENVISIONING A SMALLER RESTAURANTS, UM, AND POTENTIALLY A BANK TOWARDS HERO WAY. 
          AND THEN, UM, POTENTIALLY AN OFFICE USE TOWARDS THE BACK AND A SORT OF A MEDIUM SIZE, UH, RETAIL, UM, LOCATION OR, UH, BUILDINGS THERE IN THE BACK. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, THAT'S ALL I GOT FOR NOW. 
          MR. SAUCE. 
          WHAT ARE THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS ON THESE BUILDINGS? SO IT WOULD BE 35 FEET, THE 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOLMES. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN A WORST ZONING REQUEST IN THE ENTIRE TIME I'VE EVER BEEN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          UH, EVEN IF THE SUPPOSITION IS THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO ZONING UNDER THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING HERE IS TO BUILD A SUBURBAN STRIP CENTER IN DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A TRANSIT CENTER DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO WHAT WILL EVENTUALLY BE THE URBAN CORE OF THE CITY. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT TO BUILD UNDER COMPOSITE. 
          OKAY. 
          THEY COULD COME BACK WITH A COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT SUGGESTS LAYING OUT THE BUILDINGS IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, UM, THAT SHOULD BE GOING IN THIS AREA. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I GUESS IF ALL WE EVER WANT TO DO IS JUST BUILD SUBURBAN STRIP CENTERS FROM HERE TO ETERNITY THAT HAVE A 30 YEAR LIFE AND THEN ARE EMPTY AND THEN HAVE TO GET RAISED TO PUT SOMETHING ELSE IN. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          BUT I MEAN, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT BUILDING A HEALTHY, RESILIENT COMMUNITY BUILDING THIS KIND OF STUFF EVERYWHERE. 
          UM, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT EAST STREET. 
          UM, I, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY PART OF THIS PUD CASE, BUT I WAS CONFUSED AT LEAST ON THEIR, UM, UH, ON THEIR DOCUMENTS THAT IT SAYS BY OTHERS. 
          WHY WOULD THEY NOT BE BUILDING OUT AT LEAST SOME SECTION OF THE ROAD IF THEY WOULD BE DEVELOPING DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO IT? SO I THINK THE DEVELOPER WHO HAD COME IN AND WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO BUILD THAT CORRECT, OR SO THIS IS, THIS IS ONE WHERE WE HAVE THE PLANS, RIGHT UNDER REVIEW FOR EAST STREET. 
          SO WHEN IT STARTED, THE OWNER WAS BUILDING THE STREET AND HE WAS SELLING THIS TO A DIFFERENT DEVELOPER. 
          I THINK THINGS HAVE CHANGED AND NOW THEY ARE ACTUALLY DEVELOPING IT AS WELL, BUT THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING THE STREET. 
          OH, THIS IS THE NORTHERN STRETCH, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          NORTH OF THE HERO WAY. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAD. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ONE QUESTION AND THIS IS MORE JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AUDIENCE OF THE PYLON SIGNS. 
          DO YOU HAVE WHAT, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND WHAT WE NORMALLY HAVE AND WHERE WOULD IT BE LOCATED AT? UM, SO LET'S SEE IF THEY HAVE, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAD THE LOCATION PICKED OUT. 
          UM, I WOULD IMAGINE IT'D BE 
          [00:15:01]
AROUND A, US ONE 83. 
          UM, BUT RIGHT NOW WHAT WE HAVE ARE THE MONUMENT SIGNS THAT YOU SEE THE MASONRY SIGNS AROUND TOWN AND THE PYLON WOULD BE, UH, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THOSE TALL, LIKE A MCDONALD'S LOCATION SIGN. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE AN ACTION ITEM. 
          I'D LIKE TO ASK ONE MORE QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          ROBIN IS FOR YOU. 
          WHAT ARE THE PLANS FOR EACH STREET? IS IT GOING TO GO ACROSS BRUSHY CREEK AND LINK THIS TO OLD TOWN? OR IS IT GOING TO STOP BRUSHY CREEK? AND IF IT DOES GO ACROSS BRUSH CREEK, UH, HOW FAR IS IT GOING TO GO? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ON THE SOUTH SIDE? LIKE ON THE SOUTH OF HERO WAY? I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS WHAT ARE THE PLANS FOR EACH STREET? YEAH. 
          SO ON, IF YOU'RE LIKE HEADED INTO OLD TOWN, THAT SEGMENT, UM, SO DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT, THE COMMISSION'S RECENTLY REVIEWED, UM, THAT REQUEST FOR OFFICE OVER THE MEDICAL OFFICE THAT WAS GOING THERE. 
          SO AS PART OF THAT, THEY'RE DEDICATING THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR EACH STREET. 
          AND THEN I THINK THE CITY HAD PLANS FOR EXTENDING EAST STREET AS A CIP PROJECT. 
          I DON'T KNOW THE TIMING OF IT, BUT I KNOW THAT IT WAS PART OF A BOND PROJECT. 
          I JUST DON'T KNOW WHEN IT'S GOING TO START, BUT WE STILL PLAN TO GO ACROSS BRUSHY CREEK WITH THESE STREETERS. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE THIS YEAR, BUT NO, I DON'T THINK SO EITHER. 
          IT'S, IT'S, IT'S BEEN QUITE A WHILE COMING, BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO STOP IT AT BRUSHING CREW HERE. 
          WE WANT TO TAKE IT ALL THE WAY ACROSS TO 2243. 
          IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT'LL CROSS, BUT WE CAN GET MORE INFORMATION AND LET YOU KNOW. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM, MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          I'LL SECOND THEN. 
          SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER STYLES. 
          SECOND BY COMMISSIONER, MAY ALL IN FAVOR, ALL OPPOSED MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HINES TO DENY SECOND BY COMMISSIONER. 
          COSGRAVE ALL IN FAVOR. 
          ALL OPPOSED MEASURE PASSES THREE TO TWO. 
          NEXT 
          [10. Conduct a Public Hearing regarding Zoning Case 20-Z-037 to amend Phase 2 of the Valley Vista East Planned Unit Development (PUD) with the base zoning of SFL-2-A (Single-Family Limited), Subdivision Case 20-CP-013 to adopt the Valley Vista East Phase 2 Concept Plan, and Subdivision Case 20-PP-027 to adopt the Valley Vista East Phase 2 Preliminary Plat on one parcel of land approximately 35.54 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcel R021710; and generally located south of Gabriels Horn Rd. and east of Ronald W. Reagan Blvd., Leander, Williamson County, Texas. 	Discuss and consider action regarding Zoning Case 20-Z-037, 20-CP-013, and 20-PP-027 as described above. Staff Presentation 	Applicant Presentation 	Open Public Hearing 	Close Public Hearing 	Discussion 	Consider Action]
UP ON THE AGENDA. 
          ITEM. 
          NUMBER 10, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ZONING CASE 20 ZERO 37 TO AMEND PHASE TWO OF THE VALLEY VISTA EAST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH A BASE ZONING IS F S F L TWO DASH A SINGLE FAMILY LIMITED SUBDIVISION CASE 20 CPS ZERO ONE THREE TO ADOPT THE VALLEY VISTA EAST PHASE TWO CONCEPT PLAN AND THE SUBDIVISION CASE 20 PPE ZERO 27 TO ADOPT THE VALLEY VISTA EAST PHASE TWO PRELIMINARY PLAT ON ONE PARCEL OF LAND, APPROXIMATELY 35.5, FOUR ACRES IN SIZE, AND GENERALLY LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF GABRIEL HORNS ROAD AND EAST OF RONALD REAGAN ROAD, LEANDER ONCE AND COUNTY, TEXAS STAFF PRESENTATION. 
          HI GARDENA GARCIA WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THEY'RE GOING TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING ZONING CASE 20 ZERO THREE SEVEN 20 CPS ZERO ONE THREE AND 20 PTS ZERO TWO SEVEN. 
          THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE ZONING PROCESS, AS WELL AS THE FIRST TWO STEPS IN THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS. 
          THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM DURING THE MEETING OF MAY 13, 2021, THE COMMISSION VOTED TO POSTPONE THE ITEM IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT TO MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS WITHIN 500 FEET FROM THE SITE, AND TO REVISE THE NOTES, TO INCLUDE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PRIVATE STREETS AND TO ADD THE LANGUAGE JACK REGARDING THE DWELLING UNITS, AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WITH THE ORIGINAL PETITION, THE APPLICANT MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES, AND THEY ALSO MET WITH THE RESIDENTS WITHIN 500 FEET AND MADE ADDITIONAL CHANGES, WHICH ARE PROVIDED IN HARD COPIES BECAUSE THEY WERE STILL BEING WORKED ON TODAY. 
          UM, SO I'M GONNA LET THE APPLICANT DO THEIR PRESENTATION ON THE CHANGES THAT THEY'VE MADE THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION. 
          [00:20:08]
THAT'S OKAY. 
          I, I THINK, UH, IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE COMMISSION, I'LL, I'LL JUST GET STARTED WHILE ROBIN IS, UH, TRYING TO LOOK AT THOSE SLIDES. 
          THERE'S ONLY THREE SLIDES. 
          UM, WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK TO YOU TONIGHT. 
          UH, CLEARLY WE, WE HAD SOME, UH, MISCOMMUNICATION WITH THE, UH, THE NEIGHBORING, UH, HOMEOWNERS, UH, BEFORE THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING AND, AND WE'VE, WE'VE USED THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE US TO GO BACK AND HAVE TWO REALLY PRODUCTIVE MEETINGS. 
          UH, WE HOSTED TWO OPEN HOUSES AT OUR VALLEY VISTA STATES MODEL HOME, WHICH IS, UH, ABOUT, ABOUT 200 YARDS FROM THE ACROSS RONALD REAGAN FROM THE COMMUNITY. 
          UH, WE HAD ABOUT SAY, OR WE HAD SIX HOMEOWNERS OUT OF THE, UH, ABOUT 14 TO 16, UH, SOLD HOMES THAT EXIST IN PHASE ONE THAT ATTENDED, UH, BETWEEN THE TWO NIGHTS. 
          UM, WE DID WANT TO KIND OF REVIEW SOME, UM, HIGH LEVEL NOTES ABOUT, ABOUT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. 
          UM, WE'RE REQUESTING A DOWN ZONE, UH, TO 97 UNITS FROM THE CURRENTLY APPROVED 174 UNIT, UH, PRELIMINARY PLAN AND ZONING. 
          UM, W OUR ZONING CASE AS IT'S BEING CONSIDERED HERE DOES NOT APPLY IN ANY WAY TO, TO PHASE ONE, WHETHER THAT BE THROUGH RESTRICTIVE CABINETS OR, UM, RESTRICTIONS OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT. 
          UM, AND, UH, OUR, OUR PROPOSAL WILL REDUCE TRAFFIC AND UTILITY BURDENS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CURRENT DENSITY. 
          AND THAT, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT WITH, UH, OUR, OUR NEIGHBORS WHEN THEY CAME OUT, UM, THAT'S THAT WE THINK IS A NET BENEFIT TO, UH, TO THE COMMUNITY WE'RE ELIMINATING, UH, OVER 800 OR NEARLY 800 FEET OF A PRIVATE STREET. 
          UH, WE'RE ADDING AN ACRE OF OPEN SPACE AND WE'RE, UH, ELIMINATING 77 UNITS BY GOING FROM ONE 74 TO 97. 
          UM, AND THEN, UH, WE ARE GOING TO BE IMPROVING THE PARKLAND. 
          UM, SO WE HAVE A PRIVATE PARK AND SOME PUBLIC PARKLAND LOCATED IN PHASE TWO. 
          UM, AND SO, UM, JUST TO REVIEW THE CHANGES WE'VE MADE, UH, I BELIEVE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF PUBLIC STREETS WERE CONCERNED FROM THE COMMISSION. 
          LAST TIME WE, WE HAVE AMENDED, UH, THE PUD TO INCLUDE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF ALL PRIVATE STREETS. 
          UM, AND THEN, UH, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE, UH, DIFFERENT LANGUAGE WITH REGARD TO, UH, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN PHASE TWO. 
          AND WE'VE, WE'VE CHANGED THAT BACK TO JUST MIRROR PHASE ONE. 
          SO THERE WON'T BE, UH, TH THE RESTRICTIONS WILL BE SIMILAR BETWEEN PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO, UM, CAN GO TO THE SECOND SLIDE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, AND THEN, UH, W AFTER OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH A PHASE ONE RESIDENTS, WHICH IS WHY YOU'RE JUST NOW GETTING THE PACKET. 
          SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT, UH, APPRECIATE IT ROBIN, AND CREATE A WORKING WITH US TO, UH, TO GET THESE CHANGES INTO THE PUD. 
          UM, WE TALKED ABOUT DOING ENHANCED BARRICADES AT THE ALLEYWAY TERMINATIONS. 
          WE'RE GOING TO BE TERMINATING TWO ALLEYS IN PHASE ONE THAT WON'T CONTINUE INTO THE PHASE TWO, OR THEY'RE GOING TO BE TERMINATING INTO OPEN SPACE. 
          SO THERE WILL BE A SOMEWHAT OF AN OPEN SPACE PARKLAND AT THE END OF THOSE. 
          UM, AND WE'RE GOING TO DO, I'VE GOT A PICTURE ON THE NEXT SLIDE OF, OF THE CONCEPTUAL, UH, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. 
          UM, AND THEN, UH, WE'VE ADDED A SIDEWALK CONNECTION, AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT HERE. 
          SO WE'VE HAD A SIDEWALK CONNECTION FROM THE CURRENT ALLIE SINICA PATH DOWN TO WIND RIVER, UH, IN PHASE TWO, UM, THAT WE'LL BE USING THAT, UH, THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED BY THE, UH, BY THE RESIDENTS TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE BETTER CONDUCTIVITY, UH, FOR THE PHASE ONE RESIDENCE, UH, ESPECIALLY TYING INTO OUR SIDEWALKS THAT ARE GONNA LEAD BACK UP TO THE PRIVATE PARK WERE IMPROVING. 
          UM, WE DID GET A REQUEST FOR, UH, PUTTING IN SOME NEIGHBORHOOD MONUMENTATION SPECIFIC TO VALLEY VISTA. 
          THE CURRENT MONUMENTATION ALONG GABRIEL HORN ROAD IS MIXED IN WITH MOMMY MONUMENTATION FOR BLUFF USE. 
          SO THERE WAS NO INDIVIDUAL MONUMENTS CALLING OUT VALLEY VISTA. 
          SO WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH, UH, ROBIN AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO, TO SEE IF WE CAN GET A, UH, A MONUMENT IN, AT THE, AT OUR ENTRANCE ON PUEBLO PASS OFF OF GABRIEL'S HORN, THAT'S JUST SPECIFIC TO VALLEY VISTA. 
          UM, AND THEN WE DISCUSSED ROUTING ALL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, UH, TO THE GABRIEL HORN ENTRANCE. 
          AND THEN IT'S, THESE TWO ACTUALLY GOT SPLIT UP IN THE, UH, THE PUD NOTES, 
          [00:25:01]
BUT, UH, WE'RE ALSO GONNA, UH, COMMIT TO MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE ALL DIRECTIONAL MARKETING SIGNS THAT WE DO. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WE PERMIT ONCE WE GET OUR MODEL HOME OPEN, TAKE PEOPLE TO THAT GABRIEL'S HORN ENTRANCE AND NOT TO THE WIND RIVER ENTRANCE OFF OF, UH, RONALD REAGAN. 
          UM, AND THEN WE'VE, WE'VE COMMITTED TO COMPLETING THE PRIVATE PARK IMPROVEMENTS OR ALL THE PRIVATE PARK IMPROVEMENTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PRIOR TO HAVING OUR FIRST, UH, GFR HOMEOWNER MOVE IN. 
          SO BEFORE WE START, UH, CLOSING ANY HOUSES IN THERE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL THAT DONE. 
          UH, THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE POD NOTES BY SAYING WE'RE GOING TO, UM, HAVE THOSE, UH, RECREATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS DONE WITH THE FIRST SECTION OF DEVELOPMENT, UM, UH, BELIEVE THAT IS ALL I HAD, AND, UH, I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR YOUR QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ON THE PHONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS? NOW WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION. 
          LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER HINES. 
          UH, YES. 
          UM, I HAD, UH, I NOTICED THAT IN THIS NEW MATERIAL WE'VE GOT, UM, AN ARBORIST REPORT IS REFERENCED. 
          IS THAT IN OUR ORIGINAL PACKET? OR DO WE HAVE THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE? I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. 
          I BELIEVE IT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL PACKET. 
          THERE'S TWO TREES THAT WERE SHOWN THAT WERE DEAD. 
          WE'VE GOT PICTURES OF THEM. 
          I MUST'VE JUST MISSED THAT ENTIRELY. 
          UM, OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UH, LET ME, UM, LET ME ASK, UH, MS. CASTILLO OR, OR MRS. GRIFFIN, WHOEVER CAN REALLY ANSWER THIS QUESTION. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT, UM, HERITAGE TREE AND SIGNIFICANT TREE PROTECTION, AND WHEN DURING THE PROCESS THEY'RE PROTECTED AND WHEN THEY SORT OF STOPPED BEING PROTECTED, YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU'VE GOT EVERYTHING SUBDIVIDED, IF SOMEBODY SAYS, WELL, I GOT TO PUT A HOUSE HERE, YOU KNOW, THEN, THEN THAT TREE THAT SHOWS ITSELF HAS PROTECTED ON A PLAN CAN BE REMOVED BY VIRTUE OF BEING WITHIN WHAT IS IT, 10 FEET OF THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. 
          DOES THE FACT THAT THESE ARE NOT GOING TO BE A BUNCH OF FEES, SIMPLE LOTS THAT THERE WE'RE DOING THE CONDO REGIME SPECIFICALLY, I'M LOOKING AT. 
          UM, I THINK IT'S BLOCKED. 
          UH, WELL, I APOLOGIZE. 
          I'M GOING TO DO A BAD JOB OF DESCRIBING THIS, BUT THE, UM, THE BLOCK THAT SORT OF SITS BETWEEN DELAWARE STREET, UH, PUEBLO PASS AND THE AUTO STREET, WHICH IS THE LITTLE PRIVATE DRIVE, KIND OF, UM, IT'S GOT THAT BIG HERITAGE TREE AT THE SOUTHERN TIP OF IT. 
          WHAT, WHAT GUARANTEE IS THERE THAT THEY WILL USE THE CONDO REGIME TO ENSURE THAT THAT TREE STAYS THERE AFTER THE HOUSES GET BUILT? IS THERE ANY GUARANTEE OF THAT? SO THIS GETS REVIEWED DURING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT, UM, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE A COMMERCIAL. 
          IT'S JUST ONE LOT. 
          IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH THE SAME. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT'S SORT OF THE COMMERCIAL ONES. 
          OH, SHUCKS. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          YES. 
          I DID NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT THAT. 
          SO, SO WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WHAT WOULD BE, IT'S NOT ABOUT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT DOES THE SAME 10 FOOT, I MEAN, W W WHAT DOES THAT PROCESS GOING TO LOOK THROUGH WHEN THEY GET TO SITE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS? DID YOU HAVE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS? LIKE THEY CAN REMOVE UP TO 50 BETWEEN EIGHT TO 26 INSTEAD OF JUST EIGHT TO 18, BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO MITIGATE THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS A HERITAGE TREE AS IT IS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO, WOULD THEY HAVE TO THAT HAVE TO MITIGATE FOR IT. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TAKE IT DOWN WITHOUT AN APPROVAL, EVEN AFTER THE SUBDIVISION. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THAT IS CORRECT. 
          THERE IS NO CHANCE IF WE DON'T APPROVE REMOVAL OF THAT, THAT THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO REMOVE THAT HERITAGE TREE THROUGH ANY OTHER PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING PROCESS. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, THEN I THINK I'M GOING TO GO LOOKING FOR THAT, UH, TREE PACKET INFORMATION AND WE CAN MOVE ON. 
          I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. 
          THANK YOU, MR. STILES, THERE WERE SEVERAL RESIDENTS FROM, UM, THE FIRST PORTION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT DID COME UP AND WERE QUITE ANIMATED LAST VISIT. 
          DID THEY NOT SUBMIT ANYTHING ON THEIR FEELINGS OF THEY HAVEN'T SUBMITTED ANYTHING, BUT IF THE APPLICANT DID SAY THAT THEY WERE IN SUPPORT AND THEY WERE GOING TO COME OUT TO SAY THAT THEY WERE IN SUPPORT, OKAY, SO Y'ALL ARE HERE. 
          SORRY. 
          YOU HAVE YOUR MASK ON. 
          SO YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. 
          YOU'RE HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY'VE DONE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO WE'RE CUTTING BACK THE AMOUNT OF 
          [00:30:01]
HOUSING IN HERE IN HALF, OR WHEN YOU'RE ON, THESE ARE GOING TO BE CONDOMINIUMS AND I DON'T HAVE THE PORTION FROM LAST PART, BUT WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WAS FIRST PROPOSED AND WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED? SO AT THE BACK OF YOUR PACKET, THERE WAS TWO RED LINES. 
          ONE OF THEM IS ONE OF THEM HAS MORE RED LINES THAN THE OTHER. 
          THAT ONE WAS FROM THE ORIGINAL PET THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2017 TO NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I'M A, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED TO BE GIVEN THIS AT THE VERY LAST MOMENT AND THEN TRY TO GO THROUGH IT AS WE'RE PROVEN, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'VE DONE IT AND EVERYTHING, BUT I'M A LITTLE BIT LEANING TOWARDS THAT WHEN WE GET SOMETHING LIKE THIS AT THE LAST MINUTE, WE SHOULD PUT THIS OFF TILL THE NEXT MEETING. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT FOR RIGHT NOW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, JUST BEFORE WE MOVE ON, DOES ANYBODY HERE HAVE A PACKET THAT SHOWS THE TREES THAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY DYING? I CANNOT, FOR THE LIFE OF ME FIND THEM IN MY PACKETS OR SOMETHING IN HERE THAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT, IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN DO SOON, THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          , YOU KNOW, IT'S EASY TO LOOK OVER THERE, MR. COSGROVE FIRST, I'D LIKE TO, UH, THANK TO DEVELOPERS FOR PUTTING IN THE EXTRA TIME TO WORK WITH THE RESIDENTS AND, AND COME UP WITH A FINE, FINE. 
          AGAIN, IT'S A REVISITING THAT LUCK THAT MOST PEOPLE SEEM HAPPY WITH. 
          THOSE OF YOU KEEPING SCORE AT HOME. 
          YOU SHOULD NOTICE THAT WE SEE THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN. 
          WHEN YOU WORKED WITH THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU, YOU USUALLY GET A BETTER PRODUCT AND YOU GET PEOPLE COMING OUT TO ACTUALLY SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE DOING. 
          UM, OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVE NOTHING ELSE. 
          THANK YOU, MR. MAN. 
          WELL, COMMISSIONER COSTCO JUST SAID EVERYTHING I WANTED TO SAY, SO I'M GOOD. 
          THANKS. 
          GOING LAST STINKS, EVERYBODY STILL THUNDER, BUT I DO WANT TO APPLAUD YOU ON WORKING WITH THEM. 
          UM, UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT THINGS GET SOLD AND REGULATE CHANGED AND, UM, TH THE WORD SOMETIMES COMING OUT AND LEGALEES, AND IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND. 
          UM, I'VE BEEN ON THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION FOR A YEAR AND A HALF, AND SOMETIMES IT'S CONFUSING TO ME. 
          UH, THANK GOODNESS ROBIN ANSWERS ALL MY EMAILS TO, UH, GET THOSE RESOLVED. 
          SO THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM. 
          I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          NOPE. 
          SOMEBODY CAN MAKE A SECOND AND THEY WANT TO SAY, I'LL MAKE A SECOND. 
          UM, ONE THING I FEEL THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO MENTION THE SORT OF VIEW POINT THAT WAS MADE BY THE APPLICANT. 
          I THINK IT'S CURIOUS, THAT WOULD THINK ABOUT IS THERE WAS SORT OF THE SUPPOSITION THAT THIS IS SOMEHOW BETTER FOR THE CITY, BECAUSE THERE ARE LESS HOUSES HERE. 
          AND THUS, THERE'S LESS OF LIKE AN INFRASTRUCTURE BURDEN. 
          THERE'S LESS OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE BURDEN AS A RESULT OF THAT. 
          HERE'S THE THING, THOUGH, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THAT, WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING IS, OH, WE'RE GOING TO USE LESS WATER. 
          AND I THINK REALLY THAT'S ALL PEOPLE ARE REALLY THINKING ABOUT BECAUSE THIS IS BUILDING ALMOST THE EXACT SAME LINEAR FEET OF STREETS AND STORM SEWER SYSTEMS. AS YOU HAD FOR THE PREVIOUS NUMBER OF HOUSES, THIS WILL BRING IN LESS TAX REVENUE FOR THE SAME PHYSICAL PLOT OF LAND LAND THAN THE PREVIOUS OPTION DID. 
          IF WE WANT TO LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, THAT'S THE CHOICE THAT WE WANT TO MAKE. 
          SO BE IT, BUT THE COST TO MAINTAIN THIS PROJECT WILL BE ABOUT THE SAME WITH THIS NEW BREAKDOWN OF HOMES BEING BUILT, UM, AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WITH MORE, BUT IT WILL BRING IN LESS MONEY. 
          AND THUS, I WOULD ARGUE AS A NET LOSS FINANCIALLY TO THE LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE BUDDY, BUT BUDGET OF THE CITY. 
          AND I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS SORT OF THING. 
          UM, MS. CASTILLO, DO WE, DO WE HAVE THAT? DID YOU, DID WE FIND THE PICTURES? I JUST WANT TO SEE THEM BEFORE WE VOTE AS ALL I DID FORWARD IT TO. 
          OH, DID YOU? OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M SURE IT'S HARD TO HEAR THAT. 
          I'M SO SORRY. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, ONE THING TO NOTE, UM, PROBABLY THE, UM, I'M ON A BOARD OF A NATURE WAY HERE IN TOWN AND THE SINGLE BIGGEST EXPENSE THAT OUR HOA HAS IS WATERING THE GRASS IN A PARKLAND THAT THAT'S, OR HOA DOES NOT MAINTAIN THE STREETS. 
          IT DOESN'T MAINTAIN THE STORM WATER SYSTEM, THE CITIZENS OF THE, OF THE CITY THROUGH OUR TAX DOLLARS DO THAT AND THAT, ALL RIGHT. 
          SO THE BURDEN OF WATER IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. 
          SO WHEN YOU HAVE AN ACRE OF PARKLAND, THAT'S BEING IRRIGATED, YOU'RE USING MORE WATER THAN IF YOU HAD, I BELIEVE IT WAS 12 UNITS PER ACRE, RIGHT. 
          OF APARTMENTS, UH, USE LESS WATER THAN AN ACRE, JUST FOR IRRIGATION OF THE GRASS. 
          CAN YOU REPEAT ONE MORE TIME? WHAT YOU JUST SAID, I'M ASSOCIATED AN ACRE OF GRASS AND YOU HAD TO IRRIGATE THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          IT WOULD USE MORE WATER THAN IF YOU HAD 
          [00:35:01]
12 APARTMENTS ON THE SAME LAND. 
          OH, YES, YES, YES. 
          I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE THAT. 
          SO USE OF WATER THERE'S PLUSES AND MINUSES TO IT. 
          AND I DO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE FEWER UNITS PER ACRE, ACTUALLY COSTING MORE FOR THE UPKEEP OF THE STREETS AND STORM SEWERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          I DO. 
          YEAH. 
          I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          UM, ADJUSTING THAT YOU THINK THAT THIS PLAN IS SOMEHOW GOING TO USE LESS WATER THROUGH IRRIGATION THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE? NO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PARKLAND IT'S GOING TO HAVE IRRIGATION IN IT VERSUS NOT HAVE IRRIGATION. 
          I'M GOING TO PASS THIS DOWN JUST IN CASE ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO SEE THE PICTURES OF THE TWO TREES THAT ARE PARENTS. 
          THOSE ARE BOTH HERITAGE THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED, UH, AND THEY DO IN FACT, NOT LOOK SO GOOD. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL THE DISCUSSION, EVERYBODY MR. CHAIRMAN, SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE OF CONCERN LAST MEETING ARE HERE TODAY, AND I THINK THEY'D INDICATED THEY WANTED TO SPEAK NOW THAT STRICTLY UP TO THIS COMMISSION AS TO WHETHER IT'S ALLOWED OR NOT, BUT I'D LIKE IT TO BE ADDRESSED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WAS THERE SOMEBODY THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ON IT? CONDOMINIUM. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO, UM, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR SPENDING THE TIME WITH US. 
          WE TRULY APPRECIATE IT. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. 
          MY ONLY CONCERN. 
          AND I THINK IT COMES INTO WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT LESS REVENUE. 
          AND SO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE THAT UP? IS IT THE NEW HIRE HOME'S GOING TO INCREASE OUR TAXES? YOU KNOW, HOW IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT US? UH, YES, IT'S PHASE ONE, PHASE TWO. 
          THEY MAY NOT INTERTWINE AS WE'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, EXPLAINED TO THAT. 
          IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT US, BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HOW IT WILL AFFECT OUR TAXES. 
          IF YOU HAVE TO MAKE THAT UP SOMEWHERE, T T TAXES ARE A BURDEN THAT ARE SPREAD ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY. 
          SO YOU KNOW THIS IN THE WAY THAT IT'S GOING TO MAKE A PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE TO YOU OR ME PERSONALLY, IN MY HOUSE, ON MY SIDE OF TOWN OR YOURS IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL. 
          WHAT I'M TALKING MORE ABOUT IS THE BIGGER PICTURE AND THAT IF WE CONSTANTLY MAKE THESE KINDS OF CHOICES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHAT WE ARE DOING IS WE ARE RUNNING IN THE RED FOR PROJECT AFTER PROJECT, AFTER PROJECT FOR THE MAINTENANCE BUDGETS. 
          YOU KNOW, YOU CAN DO THIS THING IN A VACUUM AND IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL, BUT WHEN IT BECOMES THE POLICY OF THE CITY TO SIMPLY PRODUCE, UH, A DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, WHICH COSTS MORE TO MAINTAIN THAN IT BRINGS IN REVENUE, THEN THE CITY LOSES MONEY. 
          IT HAS TO MAKE IT UP SOMEWHERE ELSE, SOMEWHERE ELSE, SOMEWHERE ELSE. 
          THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE THEY COME FROM. 
          HOMES WE'LL PAY MORE. 
          WE DON'T, BUT AT SOME POINT WE GET NICK AT THE VERY END TOO. 
          SO IS THAT GOING TO HAPPEN? CAN WE ANTICIPATE THAT NOT AS A RESULT OF THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT, I DON'T THINK THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT IS THE, THE ISSUE HERE. 
          LIKE IT'S A, IT'S A MUCH BIGGER THING THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          YOUR TAX RATE IS NOT GOING TO BE EFFECTED BY THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT INDIVIDUALLY. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW. 
          I CAN HOLD YOU TO ALL THAT, RIGHT, MAN. 
          WOULD YOU MIND THAT THERE COMMISSIONER HI CARDS IN THE HALLWAY, IF YOU JUST FILL ONE OUT SO WE CAN HAVE YOU ON THE REGISTER. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. 
          CAN I BE REMINDED AS TO WHAT WE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT LAST TIME? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING CONCERN ABOUT LAST AND WE'RE GOING OFF INTO OTHER DIRECTIONS NOW, BUT I ASKED FOR SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES, ALL THE SHEETS, AND I GOT THAT. 
          SO I'LL DEAL WITH THAT. 
          I DON'T SEE THE HOA CHANGING THE HOA DOCUMENTATION. 
          WASN'T ONE OF THEM, UM, I BELIEVE, UH, ALLEYWAYS GOING THROUGH WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT THEY HAD TALKED ABOUT. 
          IT WAS FOR IT TO NOT JUST HAVE A DEAD END IN SOMEONE'S BACKYARD AND THEY ADDED THE BARRIERS. 
          ARE THERE ANY ISSUES THAT WE ADDRESSED LAST MEETING THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED? AND I'M ADDRESSING THAT TO THE STAFF ON ANYONE ELSE ON THE, SO THE THREE TAKEAWAYS THAT WE GOT WAS THE SIDEWALKS, THE HLA DOCUMENTS, AND FOR THEM TO MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS TO ADDRESS THEIR ISSUES. 
          SO WE'VE DONE THAT. 
          THEY'VE DONE ALL THINGS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE DO HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR, ALL OPPOSED PASSES FIVE TO FIVE TO ONE COMMISSIONER HINES OPPOSING THE SECOND DONE. 
          NEXT WE'LL MOVE ON TO 
          [11. Conduct a Public Hearing regarding Zoning 21-Z-014 to amend the current zoning of MF-3-A (Multi-Family) to create the Blake’s Bend Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) with base zoning MF-3-A (Multi-Family) on one parcel of land approximately 4.102 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcel R599058; and more commonly known as 520 Powell Dr., Leander, Williamson County, Texas.  	Discuss and consider action regarding Zoning Case 21-Z-014 as described above. Staff Presentation 	Applicant Presentation 	Open Public Hearing 	Close Public Hearing 	Discussion 	Consider Action]
ITEM. 
          NUMBER 11, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ZONING CASE 21 Z ZERO 14, TO AMEND THE CURRENT ZONING OF  MULTI-FAMILY TO CREATE THE BLAKE'S BEND MINOR PLUG PAN MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BUT WITH THE BASE ZONING OF MF THREE, A MULTIFAMILY ON 
          [00:40:01]
ONE PARCEL OF LAND, APPROXIMATELY 4.01, TWO ACRES IN SIZE AND MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS FIVE 20 POWELL DRIVE LEANDER, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS STAFF PRESENTATION. 
          YOU GOT ANACOSTIA WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT GOING TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING ZONING CASE 21 Z ZERO ONE FOUR. 
          THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE ZONING PROCESS. 
          THE APPLICANT HAD SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATED ZONING DISTRICT OF THEIR PROPERTY IN ORDER TO REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE MASONRY REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR THE ADDITIONAL SETBACKS AND DENSITY FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT. 
          THE BIG EXPENSE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN AUGUST 19 OF 2020, WHICH REQUIRED THAT ALL BUILDINGS CONSIST OF 85% MASONRY ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND 50% MASONRY ON ALL OTHER STORIES IN ORDER FOR THEM TO ALLOW FOR THE INCREASED DENSITY FROM EIGHT UNITS PER WEEK OR TWO UP TO 18 UNITS PER ACRE, THE APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT INCLUDED A REFERENCE TO THE MASONRY STANDARDS THAT WOULD APPLY TO THE PROJECT DUE TO THE PROPOSED DENSITY DURING THE PERMIT, THE BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW OF THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED PLANS THAT WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE AND STAFF OVERLOOK THE REQUIREMENT AND APPROVE THE FIRST SIX BUILDINGS WITHOUT THE REQUIRED MASONRY. 
          THESE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ALREADY. 
          UM, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PERMITTED. 
          UM, THEY HAVEN'T CLOSED THEM OUT, BUT THEY'VE BEEN BUILT. 
          UM, WHEN THE SUBSEQUENT 12 BUILDING PERMITS WERE REVIEWED STAFF NOTICE HERE AND REQUIRED THAT ALL NEW BUILDINGS BE BUILT WITH THE REQUIRED MASONRY. 
          SO THIS REQUEST IS FOR THE MINOR PUD, AND THAT WOULD REMOVE THE MAJOR REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW 12 BUILDINGS TO MATCH ALL THE EXISTING FIRST SIX BUILDINGS. 
          SO IN YOUR ANALYSIS, THERE IS A SIDE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALREADY APPROVED. 
          THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE ON THE STREET. 
          AND THEN IT INCLUDES THE ELEVATIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AND A PHOTO OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. 
          AND THE APPLICANT DID SEND LETTERS TO THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SITE. 
          AND THERE WERE NO RESPONSES RECEIVED AT THE TIME THAT THE REPORT WAS DRAFTED. 
          THE APPROVAL OF THE MINOR APPLIED WOULD ALLOW FOR THE WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED MASONRY REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER FOR THE INCREASED DENSITY TO BE ALLOWED UP TO 18 UNITS PER ACRE, UM, AS OPPOSED TO THE EIGHT UNITS THAT ARE ALLOWED BY, RIGHT. 
          THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS  OKAY. 
          GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. 
          UM, RYAN JACKSON, UM, SO AS SHE DESCRIBED, WE'RE SEEKING A MINOR PUTT TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT FIVE 20 POWELL AND LEANDER. 
          UM, THE IMAGE THERE ON THE SCREEN IS THE FIRST SIX BUILDINGS, WHICH IS CONSISTS OF 24 TOTAL TOWNHOMES. 
          UM, THE ENTIRE PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF 72 TOWNHOMES. 
          UH, THIS BEING THE FIRST PHASE, UH, THE REMAINING 48 TOWNHOMES ARE SITE APPROVED, BUT NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS OF YET. 
          UM, THE EXISTING, IF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THE PICTURE OF THE SITE HEARING, SEE BLAKE'S BEEN TOWNHOMES AT THE CORNER OF PAL AND IN HORSESHOE, UM, THE FIRST SIX BUILDINGS ARE THE ONES ALONG HORSE SHOE THERE, AND THEN THE 12 REMAINING BUILDINGS, UM, THERE. 
          SO, UM, THE 24 EXISTING TOWNHOMES HAVE AN EXTERIOR OF STONE AND MASONRY SIDING. 
          UM, THE LEFT PICTURE IS THE ORIGINAL RENDERING, UM, THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE BUILDING PLANS, UH, DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS, UH, AND ON THE RIGHT IS WHAT EXISTS TODAY. 
          AND IN PHASE ONE, UM, WE'RE REQUESTING A ZONING CHANGE TO A PUD TO PROTECT THE HARMONY AND THE CONTINUITY OF THE, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF. 
          SO IN ESSENCE, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO USE THE STONE AND MASONRY SIDING WE DID ON THESE FIRST SIX BUILDINGS ON THE REMAINDER OF THE PROJECT, UH, AND NOT CHANGE THE EXTERIOR TO, UM, A STUCCO TYPE EXTERIOR. 
          SO HERE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS WHAT WE HAVE ON THE LEFT TO CONTINUE THAT COHESION VERSUS WHAT'S ON THE RIGHT, WHICH IS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL, UM, DRAWINGS THAT WE HAD FOR THE SAME PRODUCT LINE, UM, WHICH DOES FALL UNDER THE STANDARD BEING REQUESTED. 
          OKAY. 
          WE FEEL LIKE IF WE BUILT GOING BACK TO THE PROJECT, YOU LOOK AT THE SIX UNITS ALONG THE BOTTOM, IN THAT CURRENT STYLE, AND THEN DID THE REMAINING BUILDINGS IN THE STUCCO. 
          IT CREATES SORT OF A PIECEMEAL AND REAL SEGREGATED LOOKING COMMUNITY. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID. 
          OKAY. 
          BE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. 
          SO ARE YOU THE BUILDER OR THE DEVELOPER OF THE, YOU WERE THE BUILDER AS WELL? APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          [00:45:03]
OKAY. 
          AT THIS POINT WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          WE DO HAVE SOMEONE SIGNED UP, JOHN BRETT, IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK, SIR. 
          SURE. 
          THANK YOU, JOHN BRIT AND ADDRESS IS FIVE, A 17 POWELL DRIVE. 
          SO ACROSS THE STREET FROM, FROM HERE. 
          UM, AND THEN MY ONLY QUESTIONS ARE, UH, I GUESS I WAS CONFUSED BY THE NOTICE THAT I GOT. 
          AND SO IT SOUNDED LIKE FROM THAT NOTICE THAT WE WERE TRYING TO TAKE THIS AND ADD IT TO THE PUB THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET. 
          NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. 
          AND, AND WHAT ARE THESE ZONE FOR THE ZONE FOR RENTAL OR ARE THEY ZONED FOR PURCHASED PURCHASE OR RENTAL IS NOT A PART OF ZONING. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING THAT OWNER GETS TO DECIDE. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT PART OF THIS, LIKE IT'S NOT A DECISION THAT ANYBODY UP HERE GETS TO MAKE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU GUYS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE PHONE THERE WISH TO SPEAK ON THE SIDE? I SEE NOBODY'S THERE NOW. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER, MEGAN. 
          SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT HERE. 
          UM, SO WITH THE FIRST, UH, WITH THE FIRST UNITS THAT WERE BUILT, WERE YOU, WERE YOU AWARE OF THE 85% MASONRY, 50% ON ALL THE OTHER STORIES REQUIREMENT? SO, UM, MY BUSINESS PARTNER, JOSH BECKER, UH, HAD THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH ROBIN AND STAFF THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS. 
          AND IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WHAT WE INITIALLY SUBMITTED, UM, WAS GOING TO BE APPROVED, UM, WITH, WITH, FOR THE WHOLE ENTIRE PROJECT. 
          SO IT WAS UNDER OUR IMPRESSION THAT WHAT WE WERE SUBMITTING WAS WHAT'S ACCEPTABLE AT THE TIME. 
          CAN I ADD TO THAT ON OUR, OUR SITE PLANS, WE HAVE A NOTE THAT, UM, REFERS TO THE REQUIREMENT OF THE 85% MAY STIR IN THE FIRST STORY, AND THEN 50% ON ALL OTHER STORIES. 
          I WANT TO ADD TO THAT TOO. 
          I THINK THEY'RE REFERRING TO WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THE D THE PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS, THE REQUIREMENT WASN'T A THING YET. 
          WE HADN'T UPDATED OUR ORDINANCES BECAUSE IT HAS BILL HADN'T BEEN PASSED YET. 
          SO DURING THE ACTUAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, THAT'S WHEN THE DISCUSSIONS HAPPENED WITH THE ENGINEER, NOT WITH THE, WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE DEVELOPER. 
          OKAY. 
          CAUSE I MEAN, I'M HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF HARD TIME WRAPPING MY HEAD AROUND, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENED. 
          I'M NOT TRYING TO POINT FINGERS AND TRYING TO LAY BLAME, BUT I ALSO WANT TO UNDERSTAND, I MEAN, WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A REASON. 
          AND IF THE, IF THE DEVELOPER UNDERSTANDS THOSE STANDARDS AND YOU, AND YOU SAID, SIR, THAT, THAT THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, YOUR RENDERING WAS A PART OF THE ORIGINAL, WHEN YOU SAID IT WOULD MEET THE STANDARDS THAT WERE SET FORTH. 
          MY QUESTION IS THEN HOW DID SOMETHING DIFFERENT GET BUILT THAN WHAT IS IN OUR STANDARDS, WHICH YOU WERE AWARE OF. 
          AND I, AND, AND, UH, WHETHER IT'S A STAFF, A DEVELOPER, WHATEVER ISSUE THAT'S, UH, AGAIN, UH, FOR ME, IT'S JUST HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE GET TO THIS PLACE. 
          SO THAT'S A RHETORICAL QUESTION THAT NEEDED EXPLANATION FROM IT. 
          THAT'S ALL MR. COSGROVE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. 
          ARE WE SAYING THAT THEY CAN'T BUILD WHAT'S ON THE ACTUAL SIDE TODAY, CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND ARE YOU SAYING IT HAS TO LOOK LIKE WHAT YOU YOU'VE, YOU SHOWED ME AS, AS THE ALOUD THAT YOU COULDN'T JUST MAKE THE, THE ELEVATION LOOK SIMILAR, EXACT TO WHAT YOU HAVE THERE, AND THEN JUST STUCK WITH IT BY THE MASONRY REQUIREMENT. 
          I'M NOT SAYING THAT. 
          UM, BECAUSE THEY DON'T LOOK, THEY LOOK VERY DIFFERENT. 
          YEAH. 
          ALL I'M SAYING IS THE ONE ON THE RIGHT WAS THE ORIGINAL SKETCH. 
          WE'VE NEVER, WE HAVE NOT DONE A SKETCH OF STUCCO AND STONE WITH THE ELEVATION ON THE LEFT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S WHAT I HAVE FOR RIGHT NOW. 
          WHAT PERCENTAGE OF MASONRY AND NOT NON MASONRY ARE THE BUILDINGS BUILT AT NOW? THEY ARE BUILT AT, UM, 11% STONE AND THEN THE REST OF IT IS EITHER HARDY OR FIBER CEMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          I ALSO, UH, WANTED TO MAKE THIS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. 
          THIS WAS APPROVED 12, 13 YEARS AGO. 
          THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THE RECORDS, DIGITIZE THOSE TO THE ZONING 
          [00:50:01]
CHANGE. 
          IT'S NOT PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVING APARTMENTS THAT DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE DID THIS WAS, THEY WERE APPROVED FOR APARTMENTS. 
          AND THE DISCUSSION HERE IS IN REGARDS TO THEY'RE ALLOWED EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE. 
          IF THEY, WHETHER WE SAY YES OR NO, RIGHT. 
          AND THEORETICALLY, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE 85 IN MASONRY ON THE FIRST STORY AND 50% MASONRY ON THE OTHERS. 
          AND ARE, ARE THERE ANY BUILDING MATERIALS THAT COULD BE USED TO COME UP WITH A SIMILAR TYPE LOOK, I I'M NOT A BUILDER. 
          WELL, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAINTAIN CONTINUITY IN OUR COMMUNITY. 
          WE HAVE SIX BUILDINGS COMPLETED AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE THAT SAME STYLE WHERE WE'RE CHANGING STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE. 
          IF WE NOW REVERT BACK TO STUCCO, UM, DOES IT HAVE TO BE STUCCO, I GUESS IS THE POINT? UH, WELL, EITHER WAY, I MEAN, IF YOU, IF YOU BROUGHT STONE OR BRICK OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF MASONRY MATERIAL ALL THE WAY UP, IT WOULD CHANGE THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE COMMUNITY. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, UH, REAL QUICK, IF YOU CAN GO BACK ON TO THE LAST SLIDE. 
          SO THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, THE ACTUAL, WHO, WHO DOES THE MAINTENANCE FOR THE YARDS IS THAT THE, THE OWNERS ARE THE RENTERS, THE OWNERS, THE OWNERS. 
          AND IS IT, UM, IS IT LIKE AN APARTMENT ON THIS SIDE AND THEN ON THE BACK END, THERE'S ANOTHER CORRECT ENTRANCE. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, I, I FELL WITH THE COMMISSIONER MEHAN ON THIS ONE, THIS, I MEAN, IT WAS JUST A GOOF, REALLY? SO THIS IS TOUGH, BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CHECK ON THE MAINTENANCE PART OF THE YARD, COMMISSIONER STYLES, NOT ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION, IT'S YOUR SESSION. 
          BUT THE ONE BEFORE THAT HAD THIS QUESTION FOR STAFF AND FOR ROBIN, I BELIEVE THEY PASSED A BILL STATING THAT WE COULD NOT CONSIDER CLADDING. 
          YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT TO UNDER STYLES, TYPES OF TYPES OF, UH, MATERIALS, SUCH AS THIS. 
          I'M CURIOUS HOW WE'RE GETTING AROUND THAT, THAT BILL, WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE WE DOING THAT SAYS WE CAN DO THAT? WE OFFER INCENTIVES. 
          IF YOU PROVIDE MASONRY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE MASONRY. 
          SO BY RIGHT, THEY'RE ALLOWED EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE WITH, UM, STRICTER SETBACKS THAT WE HAVE, UM, AFTER THAT CHANGE. 
          AND THEN IN ORDER FOR YOU TO HAVE SMALLER SETBACKS AND FOR YOU TO HAVE HIGHER DENSITY, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE HIGHER STANDARDS SUCH AS MASONRY. 
          SO DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH MASONRY YOU PROVIDE, THAT'S HOW MUCH INCENTIVES YOU GET, WHAT WAS APPROVED AT FIRST FOR THIS SIDE? THE, FOR THE SITE. 
          YEAH, IT WAS 85% MASONRY. 
          AND THAT WAS DOWN. 
          IT WAS IN 2019 OR IN 2020 RATHER. 
          SORRY. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW IT WAS AFTER THE HOUSE BILL, AND THAT'S HOW THEY GOT TO ALMOST 18 UNITS PER ACRE, SIX UNITS THAT ARE UP FRONT. 
          WHAT PERCENTAGE? MASONRY I'M I REALIZE IT'S HERE, BUT I'M HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S 11%. 
          THEY'RE REQUIRED 85 ON THE FIRST STORY OF 50, ON THE OTHER SIDE, WHAT ARE THE HAVE 11% ON THE ENTIRE THING? AND THAT IS COUNTING THE HARDY PLANK IN THERE ALSO, OR, SORRY, THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED MASONRY. 
          MASONRY WOULD BE STOICS, UM, STONE, BRICK OR STUCCO. 
          UH, THE ONE THING THAT IS CONFUSING TO ME HERE IS AT ONE TIME, HARDY PLANK WAS CONSIDERED AN ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTE FOR STONE. 
          WE TRIED AND WE TRIED TO GET HIM TO DO THAT, BUT IT NEVER GOT APPROVED. 
          WELL, THAT WAS SEVERAL, SEVERAL YEARS AGO. 
          AND THAT WAS BACK IN ABOUT 2005 THAT I BELIEVE THAT CAME THROUGH, THAT IT WAS ALLOWED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR MOTION. 
          AM I INCORRECT? BECAUSE I FIND THEM JUST GO RIGHT IN AND SAY, YEAH, IT WAS BEFORE COMPOSITE ZONING. 
          SO 2005 IS WHEN IT CHANGED AND THEY ADDED THE MASONRY STANDARD. 
          SO BEFORE THAT, IF PARTY PLANK WAS ALLOWED, IT WASN'T A MASONRY STANDARD. 
          SO HARDY PLANK WAS ALLOWED. 
          OKAY. 
          WE SENT A PROPOSAL TO COUNCIL TO, TO REINTRODUCE HARDY PLANK AS AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE. 
          AND IT WAS DENIED. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          THAT WAS MORE RECENTLY DR. 
          STYLES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT CLEARS SOMETIMES UP TO SOME EXTENT PERMISSION  WELL, AS I'M SURE WILL SURPRISE NO ONE. 
          I HAVE SOME VERY STRONG OPINIONS 
          [00:55:01]
ON THIS. 
          I THINK THAT WHAT WE ARE TALKING, I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, THE PROJECT IS ENTITLED WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF 85% MASONRY. 
          NOW I APPRECIATE DR. 
          STILES POINT BECAUSE I CAN NOT STAND THIS INCENTIVE MECHANISM THAT WE'VE CREATED, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT CIRCUMVENTS THE INTENT OF THE STATE LAW, WHICH WAS DESIGNED NOT TO ALLOW CITIES TO EFFECTIVELY FORCE CLOUDING ON BUILDERS. 
          SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE MADE OUR OTHER REGULATIONS UNRELATED TO THE, UM, UNRELATED TO THE CLADDING. 
          SO ONEROUS THAT SOMEONE AGREES TO THE, UM, UH, ALTERNATIVE SO THAT THEY CAN GET MORE REASONABLE SETBACK STANDARDS AND OTHER THINGS. 
          SO, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT'S NONSENSE. 
          SECOND OF ALL, I AM REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS CASE BECAUSE IT PROVIDES SUCH AN ABSOLUTELY MAGNIFICENT EXAMPLE OF WHY FLIPPING, BUILDING MATERIALS DON'T MATTER. 
          ARE, ARE ANY OF YOU ACTUALLY GOING TO SAY THAT IF WE FORCE THIS GUY TO COVER THE ENTIRE HOUSE IN LIMESTONE OR STUCCO, THESE WOULD BE SOMEHOW OBJECTIVELY, MORE ATTRACTIVE HOUSES. 
          I HOPE NOT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE NONSENSE AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED. 
          SO WHY DO WE CARE? I MEAN, THE FORM OF THE BUILDING IS THE THING THAT MATTERS, UH, NOT THE STUFF THAT YOU PUT ON THE OUTSIDE OF IT. 
          WHEN WE CAME UP WITH THE MASONRY STANDARD, WHICH BY THE WAY, IS SOMETHING THAT CAME AROUND WITH THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT MS. MRS. GRIFFIN POINTED OUT WHEN THE MASONRY COUNCIL WAS RUNNING AROUND AND LOBBYING EVERY SINGLE CITY IN THE WHOLE STATE TO ADD MASONRY REQUIREMENTS TO THEIR ORDINANCES. 
          RIGHT? SO LIKE IT'S CLEARLY AN INTEREST GROUP IS THE REASON THAT WE EVEN HAD IT IN THE FIRST, FIRST PLACE, BUT IT WAS ALSO IN RESPONSE TO THIS ISSUE THAT WE SAW, WHICH PEOPLE PUTTING REALLY CHEAP, LIKE MESA NIGHT SIDING ON HOUSES THAT WOULD BREAK DOWN AND BE TERRIBLE HARDY PLANK AND OTHER, SOME INCHES FIBER BOARDS. 
          DON'T DO THAT OVER TIME. 
          YOU REPAINT THEM EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE AND THEY LOOK GREAT, PERIOD. 
          I MEAN, IT LASTS BETTER THAN WOOD. 
          IT LASTS BETTER THAN THE MASON NIGHT. 
          SO WHAT IS THE LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT FOR WHY IT MATTERS? WHAT THEY PUT ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, AS LONG AS IT'S GOING TO LAST. 
          OKAY. 
          SO SEPARATE FROM THAT. 
          UM, I, I THINK I'VE MADE MY POINT ON THAT. 
          IT'S NONSENSE FOR US TO EVEN BE DISCUSSING THIS. 
          WE OUGHT TO JUST GIVE THE GUY WHAT HE NEEDS TO LET HIM BUILD THE STUFF HE'S ALREADY GOING TO BUILD. 
          I WOULD LOVE IF THE CHAIRMAN WILL LET ME, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AS THE BUILDER. 
          UH, IF I COULD, DO YOU MIND COMING UP HERE? SO THESE ARE FOUR PLEXES. 
          OKAY, INTERESTING. 
          SO THEY'RE BASICALLY DUPLEXES WITH ANOTHER SET OF DUPLEXES STACKED ON TOP OF THEM. 
          YOU HAVE, UH, LIKE TWO THAT SORT OF RUN SHOTGUN DOWN ONE SIDE, ONE ON TOP OF THE OTHER. 
          AND THE OTHER TWO IS THAT BASICALLY THE LAYOUT, THERE ARE TWO STORY. 
          SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, HE OCCUPIED A QUADRANT OF THE BUILDING FIRST FLOOR AND SECOND FLOOR. 
          OH, INTERESTING. 
          OH, SO, SO THERE ARE, THERE ARE TWO OTHER ENTRANCES ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE BUILDING. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          INTERESTING. 
          INTERESTING. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S TOO BAD. 
          I THINK THAT THIS, I THINK THIS IS ALSO REALLY, UM, THIS IMAGE AS A FOURPLEX IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT WHEN WE THINK, WHEN PEOPLE START TALKING ABOUT, WE HAVE ALL OF THESE ARGUMENTS ALL THE TIME ABOUT, OH, IS MOLT DOES MULTI-FAMILY REALLY BELONG IN OUR CITY? DO WE HAVE TOO MUCH? MULTI-FAMILY A SMALL THOUGHTFULLY CONCEIVED FOURPLEX BUILT THAT LOOKS SIMILAR TO THIS THOUGH. 
          IF IT WAS DONE, LIKE I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHERE YOU BASICALLY HAVE ONE THAT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LENGTH ON THE FRONT SIDE, UH, ON THE BOTTOM LEFT, ONE THAT YOU ACCESS BY GOING UP A SET OF STAIRS AND SITS OVER THE TOP OF THAT ON THE OTHER, THAT MEANS THEY CAN ALL FRONT ON THE SAME STREET. 
          YOU CAN HAVE ONE DOOR ON THE FRONT THAT OPENS INTO A SMALL SPACE WHERE YOU'VE GOT A DOOR INTO EACH FRONT UNIT AND A SET OF STEPS THAT GOES UP TO IT. 
          AND NOW IT LOOKS LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. 
          THESE THINGS, IF BUILT, LIKE THE WAY I'M TALKING ABOUT WOULD FIT IN ANY SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD IN THIS CITY. 
          AND THAT WOULD PROVIDE US THE ABILITY TO CREATE WORKFORCE HOUSING THAT, THAT PEOPLE CAN MOVE INTO AND AFFORD IN STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          THESE GUYS ARE BILLING US OVER THERE, OVER HERE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO BASICALLY SET IT UP LIKE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T REALLY LOOK LIKE APARTMENT. 
          SO THAT'S A WHOLE SEPARATE DISCUSSION, BUT, UH, COMING BACK TO THE CLADDING, I MEAN, CHRIST ALMIGHTY, LET THE GUY BUILD THE BUILDINGS. 
          LIKE THEY LOOK, THEY LOOK FINE. 
          DO THEY NOT? DOES ANYBODY DISLIKE THE WAY THAT THEY LOOK AND DO THEY THINK THAT IT WOULD BE BY PUTTING STONE OR STUCK ON THE OUTSIDE OF IT? I HOPE NOT. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          I GUESS THE ISSUE I HAD ON THIS THINKING OVER IT ON THE WEEK, I PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THIS. 
          UM, OBVIOUSLY IT WAS AGREED TO, TO GET TO THE, UM, UH, TO GET DENSITY. 
          WE HAD TO HAVE THAT. 
          THAT WAS THE DEAL. 
          YEAH. 
          DINNER WAS DEVELOPED WITHOUT THAT, IN THE PLAN. 
          AND THEN, UM, THE CITY REALIZING THEIR MISTAKE. 
          I MEAN, IT'S DIFFICULT TO LOOK AT A DEVELOPER AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, 
          [01:00:01]
WE SCREWED UP, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TEAR THE SIDING OFF OF THAT AND PUT UP A DIFFERENT SIDING. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THE ALTERNATIVE HERE IS WHAT WE SET UP AS RULES CAN BE CIRCUMVENTED NOW BY THIS PRECEDENCE THAT WE'RE SAYING, YOU CAN JUST IGNORE OUR RULES. 
          AND IF WE MAKE THE MISTAKE AND DON'T CATCH IT, THERE'S NO, I DISAGREE THAT A PRECEDENT IS BEING SET. 
          I MEAN, LISTEN, FIRST OF ALL, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHY THIS REALLY . 
          WHY DON'T WE LET THE CHAIR FINISH FIRST THOUGH, LET HIM FINISH HIS THOUGHT. 
          THE WORST WE CAN HAVE THE DEBATE. 
          IF WE MAKE THIS TEA TO ALLOW IT, WE'RE SETTING THE PRECEDENT THAT YOU, YOU, UH, THE CITY, UH, PLANNING STAFF MAKES A MISTAKE OR THE BUILDER COULD HAVE EVEN MADE A MISTAKE WHEN THEY SUBMITTED IT. 
          I'M NOT SAYING HE'S TRYING TO MESS OVER THE CITY, BUT MISTAKES WERE MADE WHEREVER THEY MAY BE. 
          AND NOW THAT THE MISTAKE IS MADE ON SIX BUILDINGS, WE'RE GOING TO IGNORE IT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO COST TOO MUCH MONEY TO FIX, OR THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK DIFFERENT. 
          AND CAN YOU IMAGINE A MUCH LARGER COMPLEX WHERE THEY HAVE, LET'S SAY 3000 UNITS AND THEY MESSED UP ON FOUR BUILDINGS AND THEY SAY, WE WANT THE WHOLE 3000 UNITS BUILT NOW AT A DIFFERENT STANDARD THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE APPROVED BEFORE, BECAUSE YOU GUYS MADE A MISTAKE THAT THAT'S THE DANGER AND THE PRECEDENCE. 
          THAT COULD BE SAD BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO APPLY THE RULES EVENLY TO EVERYBODY. 
          WE CAN'T MAKE PICK AND CHOOSE WHEN AND WHERE WE, UH, THESE EXCEPTIONS WITH RESPECT MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHO SCREWED UP. 
          WELL, THAT WOULD BE THE DEVELOPER SUBMITTED SOMETHING AND IT WAS APPROVED. 
          THE DEVELOPER MADE MISTAKE IN SUBMITTING SOMETHING THAT WAS SUBSTANDARD. 
          THE CITY MADE A MISTAKE BY APPROVING SOMETHING. 
          SOME STANDARD. 
          THE ONUS IS ON US AS THE ONUS IS ON US TO MAKE SURE IT'S DONE RIGHT. 
          UM, THE, WHERE ARE THE REGULATORY BODY? WHERE, WHERE, WHERE THE AGENCY, WHERE, W WE'RE THE ONE THAT LIKE TRUMAN SAID THE BUCK STOPS HERE. 
          SO, SO IF IN CASE LIKE THIS, IF WE'RE AT FAULT, OR I DON'T WANT TO SAY FALL, I HATE THAT WORD. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          IF, IF THE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH US FOR SOMEHOW, THESE BUILDINGS ENDED UP ON THE GROUND BECAUSE WE ALLOWED THEM TO END UP ON THE GROUND AND WE SEE OWED THEM. 
          AND THEN WE LET PEOPLE MOVE IN. 
          I THINK IT'S FAIRLY REASONABLE. 
          THEN IN THIS CASE TO GRANT THEM THE ABILITY TO CREATE CONTINUITY WITHIN THEIR, WITHIN THEIR DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND I DON'T THINK THAT APPLIES AS A PRECEDENT TO ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES BEFORE US, THAT EACH ONE OF THEM IS TREATED AS AN INDIVIDUAL ON ITS MERITS. 
          AND IN THIS CASE, I THINK THAT WE HAVE, UM, YOU ALMOST HAVE A DUTY TO, I DON'T, I'M NOT THRILLED. 
          I THINK WE HAVE A DUTY TO REPORT. 
          MAY I ALSO MAKE A POINT? SURE. 
          AND ALSO I'LL SAY THAT I WOULD MUCH PREFER A SORT OF BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSION, NOT A UNIROYAL UNILATERAL SORT OF POINT BY POINT. 
          SO ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO CHIME IN WHILE I'M SPEAKING, YOU FEEL FREE TO GO RIGHT AHEAD AND DO THAT, UM, I, I, I THINK THAT THE BIGGEST ISSUE HERE IS THAT WE'RE SOMEHOW CONFLATING THE WAY THAT WE SITUATE AND SET UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, WITH THE CLADDING ON THE BUILDING. 
          I MEAN, THE INCENTIVE MECHANISM IS BROKEN. 
          IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE BUILT AT THIS DENSITY, RIGHT. 
          AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT IT GOT APPROVED. 
          I THINK THAT THE CLADDING THAT GOES ON IT IS IRRELEVANT. 
          YOU DON'T SOMEHOW MAKE A MORE DENSE PROJECT BETTER BY STICKING A BUNCH OF STONE ON THE OUTSIDE YOUR MEDICAL POINT. 
          SURE. 
          BUT IN, IN PRACTICALITY, WE, WE TH THAT'S NOT IN OUR PURVIEW IN, UH, IN, IN, IN WHAT'S IN OUR PURVIEW IS HERE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TODAY, IF WE WOULD LIKE TO ADVOCATE TO HAVE THOSE CHANGED. 
          YEAH. 
          BY, BY, BY ALL MEANS. 
          I, I THINK THAT IS A, A VIABLE THING FOR THIS BODY, MUCH. 
          LIKE WHEN WE, WE ADVOCATED THAT HARDY BE COUNTED AS A MASONRY REQUIREMENT FOR SURE. 
          BUT HOWEVER, TODAY WE, WE CAN'T SAY, AND I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH TODAY, IT'S ONE OF THE REGULATIONS. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND FOR ME, THE ONLY REASON I CAN MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO SEE WHAT THE REGULATIONS ARE IS BECAUSE SOMEHOW SIX BUILDINGS GOT PUT ON THE GROUND. 
          SO YOU'RE SAYING, YOU'RE BASICALLY TRYING TO SAY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH REASONING TO APPROVE IT, THE REASONING 
          [01:05:01]
TO APPROVE IT SHOULD BE A MISTAKE WAS MADE. 
          AND WE SHOULD ALLOW FOR CONTINUITY BECAUSE CONTINUITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN BUILDING COLLATERAL. 
          OKAY. 
          I MEAN, YOU AND I ARE DISAGREEING ABOUT THE REASONING, BUT WE'RE COMING TO THE SAME CONCLUSION. 
          AND ALSO, I THINK THIS IS THE KIND OF SPACE WHERE WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE IMPROVED UPON FOR PROCESSES AS WE ALL THE TIME AT THESE MEETINGS. 
          SO, I MEAN, I CERTAINLY FEEL LIKE I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT AT ALL, BUT I'M JUST POINTING THAT I'M TRYING TO INSIGHT INTO MY THOUGHTS AND YOUR JUSTIFICATION ON WHY WE DO THIS IS ONE I AGREE WITH AS WELL. 
          LIKE WHY, WHY WOULD WE REALISTICALLY SAY IT'S ALREADY BUILT, WHO CARES WHAT THE MISTAKE WAS? AND ALSO LET'S JUST BE FRANK HERE. 
          RIGHT? HOW DID IT HAPPEN? THE STAFF IS OVERTAXED. 
          THEY SEE THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF APPLICATIONS, AND THERE'S A MILLION DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT AND CHECKING OFF THE MASONRY REQUIREMENT ON TOP OF THE MYRIAD, OTHER VERY IMPORTANT THINGS. 
          SOMETHING IS BOUND TO GET MISSED EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE. 
          SO I CERTAINLY DON'T FAULT THE STAFF FOR IT. 
          IT'S JUST A FUNCTION OF HOW BUSY THEY ARE. 
          SO YEAH, I MADE IT IF IT'S ARMY, BUT EVEN IF, I MEAN, I GUESS COMMISSIONER COSGRIFF TO YOUR POINT, YOU'RE SAYING IF WE COULD QUANTIFIABLY PROVE THAT THE AMBULANCE APPLICANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO SORT OF SCAN THE CITY, THEN THE ONUS WOULD BE ON THEM AND THEY JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. 
          I SEE. 
          I SEE. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK, I THINK THAT THE MOST LIKELY OUTCOME IS JUST OUR STAFF IS OVERWORKED HERE. 
          UNDERSTANDABLY. 
          SO CAN I ALSO ASK ABOUT JUST REAL QUICK? SO YOU'RE ALSO GOING FROM EIGHT TO 18 UNITS AS WELL, CORRECT. 
          THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR THIS 17, RIGHT? ROBIN. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND HE'S NOT, HE'S NOT CHANGING THAT THE WHOLE AREA WAS APPROVED TO GO UP FROM EIGHT TO 18 BASED ON THE CHANGE IN THE MASONRY. 
          YEAH. 
          THE ONLY THING WE'RE EFFECTIVELY APPROVING OR NOT AS THE MASONRY REQUIREMENTS. 
          YEAH. 
          SO WHAT, WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE, OR THE DECISION IN THIS CASE IS DO WE DROP THE MASONRY REQUIREMENTS SO THAT IT CAN BE 11% FOR THE WHOLE BUILDING? NONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR, LIKE THE BUILDINGS THERE AND ALLOW THEM TO KEEP THE ZONING FOR AT 18 UNITS PER ACRE? I THINK, OH, GO AHEAD. 
          I WAS GONNA SAY COMMISSIONER HINES. 
          I LOVE ALL THE POINTS THAT YOU MADE EARLIER, TOO. 
          UM, UH, AROUND, YOU KNOW, WHAT, OUR STANDARD, OH, I HAVE MY MICROPHONE OFF. 
          UH, I LOVED THE POINTS THAT YOU MADE COMMISSIONER HINES EARLIER ABOUT WHAT OUR STANDARDS ARE AND, AND, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT HARDY PLANK AS A, AS A VIABLE SUBSTITUTE, THOSE ARE, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. 
          THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING AND WE SHOULD BE BRINGING UP. 
          BUT ALSO AT THIS POINT, THEY'RE NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE TODAY. 
          AND THAT'S WHY I SAID EARLIER, I HAVE KIND OF A LITTLE MINT. 
          THERE'S SOME MENTAL GYMNASTICS I'M HERE. 
          I'M HAVING RIGHT NOW. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW WHICH WAY I'M GOING TO LAND. 
          UM, BECAUSE OF IT IS A MISTAKE AND WE DO WANT CONTINUITY AND YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          I DON'T CARE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. 
          RIGHT. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA LOOK BETTER IF HE, IF YOU PUT 85% MASTERY ON IT VERSUS YOUR, YOUR HARDY PLANK RIGHT THERE. 
          BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT MY PLACE. 
          SO, UM, SO THAT'S WHY I'M HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF HEARTACHE HERE AND, AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE, WHAT THE CORRECT THING IS VERSUS WHAT THE RIGHT THING IS. 
          AND SOMETIMES THEY, THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY BE DIFFERENT. 
          I, I THINK THAT IF YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY, I WANT TO FIND, IF I'M GOING TO APPROVE THIS, I WANT TO, I WANT TO LIMIT IT, UH, TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN ARGUE. 
          I MEAN, I MEAN, ACTUALLY I'M NOT, I'M NOT EVEN, I THINK THAT DON'T ARGUE IF, IF, IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO APPLY INDIVIDUAL LOGIC TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE. 
          AND INSTEAD, WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IS SAY, WHAT IS THE LETTER OF THE LAW? WHAT WE WOULD SAY IS, SORRY, BUILD ALL THE REST OF THE STUFF EXACTLY LIKE WAS APPROVED IN THE ORIGINAL PUD, BUT THAT, THAT DEFIES LOGIC. 
          SO, I MEAN, I SUPPOSE IF YOU THINK THAT CONTINUITY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING HERE IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, THEN YOU'VE GOT TO FIND SOME JUSTIFICATION FOR DOING IT. 
          PERHAPS THAT'S COMMISSIONER CAUSE GROVES WAY OF THINKING ABOUT IT. 
          AND IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S MY WAY OF THINKING ABOUT IT, WHICH IS FINE AS WELL. 
          BUT I MEAN, THE, IF ALL WE EVER DO UP HERE IS FUNCTION AS A BUNCH OF ROBOTS WHO READ THE CODE AND THEN APPLY IT THERE THERE'S, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO PURPOSE TO US MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          YOU CAN DO THAT WITHOUT US. 
          SO I, I SORT OF DISAGREE WITH THE PREMISE THAT THESE OTHER ITEMS SHOULDN'T BE DISCUSSED AS PART OF THIS CASE. 
          I THINK THEY SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE DISCUSSED AS A PART OF THE CASE. 
          I JUST DON'T THINK THEY APPLY TO THE CASE AS IT IS TODAY. 
          THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO FIND TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THERE ARE KINKS IN THE ARMOR SO THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY THOSE AND BRING THOSE UP TO COUNCIL SO THAT THEY COULD BE CHECKED. 
          AND, AND SO, AS A RESULT OF THAT, YOUR SUGGESTION IS THAT THE SUGGESTION THAT I'M MAKING, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS CASE, SHOULDN'T BE USED IN OUR DECISION-MAKING. 
          [01:10:01]
OKAY. 
          I I'M, I'M SAYING THAT THAT WHILE, WHILE I AGREE WITH A LOT OF YOUR POINTS, I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE RELEVANT TO THE INDIVIDUAL CASE THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US TODAY, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT, WHAT'S WRITTEN IN, IN OUR BUILDING STANDARDS TODAY. 
          WELL, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING WRITTEN ABOUT WHAT TO DO IF STAFF MAKES A MISTAKE, EITHER. 
          WE DON'T KNOW IF STAFF MADE A MISTAKE. 
          YES. 
          A MISTAKE WAS MADE. 
          WE DON'T HAVE A THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          DR. 
          STYLES. 
          I APPRECIATE YOU. 
          GOOD. 
          SHUT UP. 
          I HAVE TWO POINTS HERE. 
          WHY DID THIS HAPPEN? DID HE JUST PUT IT IN THERE AND IT SLIPPED BY, DID THE STAFF MAKE A MISTAKE? I THINK IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE AS TO HOW IT HAPPENED. 
          THE OTHER THING IS I'M REAL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH ALL THESE THINGS THAT SAY, IF WE DO THIS AND WE DO THAT, WE'LL GIVE YOU THIS. 
          I'M THINKING THAT WE'RE TREADING ON A VERY, VERY NARROW LINE WITH STATE LAW, AS IT WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED. 
          AND THE REASON IT WAS PROPOSED THAT WAY IS BECAUSE SOME OF THESE HIGHER BUILDING STANDARDS WERE ACCORDING TO SOME OF THE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES THAT DID THIS WERE UTILIZED TO KEEP THE POOR AND OUT OF CITIES. 
          AND THAT BOTHERS ME QUITE A BIT. 
          UM, IF WE'RE WALKING A NARROW LINE AND I'M KIND OF PUSHING PEOPLE AROUND IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW, I THINK ABSOLUTELY THIS SHOULD BE APPROVED. 
          AND I WOULD LIKE OUR LEGAL COUNSEL TO ADDRESS THAT FACT, IF WE ARE ON SOLID LEGAL GROUND AND STAFF DIDN'T MAKE A MISTAKE HERE, THEN BY ALL MEANS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BRING THIS UP TO CODE. 
          BUT WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS WHAT KIND OF LEGAL STANDING ARE WE ON RIGHT NOW? I HATE TO AGREE WITH MARSHALL ONCE AGAIN, BUT DONNA, YOU STARTED IT. 
          YOU ARE OVER SAYING, WELL, I AGREE WITH MARSHALL ON A COUPLE OF POINTS. 
          SO I GUESS YOU OPEN THE DOOR ON THIS ONE. 
          I DON'T, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE MASONRY REQUIREMENTS. 
          I THINK THAT IN MANY WAYS IT IS UTILIZED TO KEEP THINGS FROM BEING AFFORDABLE. 
          AND I THINK IN MANY CITIES, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING SOME TROUBLE GETTING PEOPLE TO DO THE JOBS THAT SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO DO. 
          I THINK HARDIEPLANK SHOULD BE UTILIZED AS MASONRY. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT OUR LEGAL STAFF SAYS ABOUT THE STATE LAWS THAT SAYS WE CAN'T USE MASONRY AS A REQUIREMENT. 
          AND I WANT TO KNOW IF THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH HOW WE'RE DOING THESE THINGS AND UNTIL WE GET THOSE ANSWERS AS TO WHY THIS HAS HAPPENED, AND IF THEY ARE COMFORTABLE IN DEFENDING THE CITY AND HOW THEY'RE DOING IT, I THINK WE OUGHT TO SET THIS ASIDE AND GET SOME EXPERT OPINIONS ON IT AND REVISIT THIS. 
          UH, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE THAT I'M JUST NOT GETTING ANY ANSWERS TO IF WE DID EVERYTHING RIGHT. 
          AND THIS IS HERE IN OPPOSITION OF WHAT OUR REQUIREMENTS STATE, THEN I'M GOING TO VOTE ONE WAY. 
          IF WE'RE NOT ON SOME SOLID GROUND, I'M GONNA VOTE A DIFFERENT WAY. 
          AND I THINK THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE WE CAN MAKE A REASONABLE DECISION ON THIS. 
          AND, UM, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. 
          I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT OUR ATTORNEYS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT INTO THIS ISSUE, UM, THEY HAVE BEEN PART OF THE CONVERSATION WITH THE HOSPITAL AND THEY HELPED US ON STRUCTURE ORDINANCES FOLLOWING THAT HOUSE BELL. 
          AND THEY'VE ALSO BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS CASE SPECIFICALLY, AND WE GIVE THEM OPTIONS AND THIS WAS THE BEST SOLUTION THAT THEY PROPOSED. 
          SO THEY THEY'VE BEEN INVOLVED THE WHOLE TIME. 
          COULD YOU POSSIBLY GO THROUGH SOME OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED? I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING, BUT CAN YOU GIVE US THE CLIFF NOTES ON IT? DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT ROBIN? YEAH. 
          ARE YOU, ARE YOU SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO THIS CASE OR CHANGES WITH THE HOUSE BILL? BOTH. 
          SO WITH THAT, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO JUST GET US OUT OF HERE EARLY, I'LL GO WITH NUMBER, OPTION, NUMBER ONE, THIS CASE. 
          YES MA'AM. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, UM, SO WITH THIS CASE, UM, WE REALIZED AFTER THE FIRST SIX STRUCTURES WERE BUILT, THAT WE MADE A ON THE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVED THEM WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE MASONRY STANDARDS. 
          SO WE HAD THE, UM, THE OPTION TO REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO FIX THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ADD MORE MASONRY TO IT. 
          WE DID DISCUSS THAT WITH OUR ATTORNEY AND THE CITY MANAGER, AND WE ALL AGREED, THE CITY MADE A MISTAKE AND THAT IS CLEAR. 
          AND IT WAS A CASE WHERE IT WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO MAKE US UPDATE THOSE BUILDINGS. 
          BUT GOING FORWARD, STAFF DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE REMAINING BUILDINGS. 
          SO OUR SUGGESTION WAS EITHER THOSE BUILDINGS COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT STANDARD, OR WE COME FORWARD WITH THIS MINOR PUD TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE. 
          WHAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION TO ADJUST THE ISSUE WE WE GAVE, WE GAVE THE APPLICANT THE OPTION, LIKE WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO. 
          WE SAID EITHER THOSE BUILDINGS 
          [01:15:01]
THAT HAVEN'T BEEN BUILT YET HAVE TO COMPLY, OR THEY DO THIS PUTT AND THEY CHOSE TO DO THIS PUTT. 
          OKAY. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION OF THE DEVELOPER. 
          WHAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE SIZE, ARE THESE APARTMENTS AND WHAT ARE THE TARGET? ARE THEY FOR SALE OR RENT? WHAT WOULD BE THE APPROXIMATE RENT OR SELL PRICE OF THESE? UM, THE SIZE OF PER INDIVIDUAL HOME IS 1084 SQUARE FEET. 
          UM, THEY ARE ALL FOR RENT. 
          NONE OF THEM ARE FOR SALE. 
          UH, AND THEY RANGE IN RENT FROM, UM, $1,300 A MONTH TO 1450 A MONTH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM, MOTION, RECOMMEND APPROVAL. 
          I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER. 
          I WAS GOING TO GO DOWN A RABBIT HOLE OF THE APARTMENTS. 
          UM, BUT I WILL, I WILL NOT DO THAT. 
          I'LL SECOND. 
          BUT, UM, I I'D LIKE TO ASK ROBIN TO PLEASE, WHEN YOU GO TO COUNCIL THAT YOU MAKE SURE YOU SAY THAT LAST PART THAT YOU DID, THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT, THAT IT WAS DISCUSSED WITH LEGAL AND WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY MADE THE MISTAKE BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY, WHEN I SAID GO CORRECT THING OR THE RIGHT THING, THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. 
          THE CITY MADE THE MISTAKE, NOT YOU GUYS. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY A SECOND COMMISSIONER HINES HIS MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          DO YOU NEED ME TO AMEND MY MOTION ROBIN? OR IS THAT JUST SOMETHING TO, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HINES AND THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER, MEHAN SURE IF I COULD JUMP ON IN HERE, UH, REAL QUICK, BUT THIS GENTLEMAN'S HAND SPIN UP AND I SEE IT. 
          I SEE YOU, SIR. 
          AND IF HE CAN SPEAK, I THINK HE WANTS TO EVERYBODY ELSE UP HERE HAS BEEN SPEAKING IF HE'S BEEN SITTING. 
          SO IF YOU ALLOW IT, WE GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY, RIGHT? THAT'S FINE. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          COME ON. 
          I'M JUST A RESIDENT. 
          UM, AND MY NAME'S JOHN BRITT FOR THE RECORD. 
          AGAIN, MY QUESTION WOULD BE WHAT'S A SETBACK. 
          AND SO I LOOKED THAT UP WHILE I WAS ON MY PHONE. 
          I WAS GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION. 
          YOU GUYS I'LL LOOK THAT UP BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          RIGHT. 
          THERE WAS SOME SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE MADE IF THEY DID X NUMBER OF PERCENTAGE OF MASONRY. 
          AND SO THIS FEEDS INTO ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I DO HAVE AS A NEIGHBOR. 
          UM, THERE'S A SECTION ALONG THE ROAD THAT HAS GRASS, UM, THAT PEOPLE ARE PARKING ON. 
          UM, AND, AND IT'S CREATING RUTS IN ALL OF THAT. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT A SETBACK WOULD DO TO THAT. 
          IF IT WOULD PUT, IF THERE'S A POSSIBILITY IN THIS, WHERE IT'S, WE LET THEM HAVE THE SAME DESIGN THAT THEY WANT, BUT THEY ALSO THEN CREATE ACTUAL PARKING SPACES ON THAT SIDE INSTEAD OF THAT, THAT PIECE OF GRASS. 
          SO THAT'S THAT'S ME. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COULD WE REPEAT THE MOTION? THAT'S ON THE FLOOR, SO WE'LL NO, NO OPEN VOTING ON IT. 
          OKAY. 
          IT WAS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. 
          UM, MRS. CASTILLO, COULD YOU BRING UP THE SITE PLAN FOR THE, IS THAT ON HERE? I'M NOT SURE. 
          I'M NOT SURE IT'S ON HERE. 
          IT IS. 
          YEAH. 
          I KNOW. 
          IT'S PART OF YOUR PACKET. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I THINK WHAT THE GENTLEMEN WAS SAYING IS THAT THEY'RE PARKING ALONG RIGHT HERE, THE STRAIGHT THERE'S, THE ACTUAL, THIS DRAINAGE DITCH. 
          THERE'S NO LIKE CURVING GUTTER. 
          IS THERE A CITY ORDINANCE AGAINST THE PARKING IN THAT SPACE? NOW THEY HAVE SO MUCH PARKING BEHIND THE BUILDINGS. 
          THE SITE IS INCOMPLETED. 
          SO ONLY PHASE ONE HAS BEEN COMPLETED. 
          SO ONLY THE PARKING ALONG THE BUILDINGS. 
          AND THEN THIS PORTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED, WHICH IS SUFFICIENT FOR PHASE ONE. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT. 
          THAT'S HAPPENING IS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE UNITS THAT FRONT ON WHAT IS THAT STREET SHOE ON HORSESHOE, DON'T WANT TO GO AND PARK AROUND THE BACK AND HAVE TO WALK TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. 
          SO IT'S NOT A BIG SURPRISE THAT THEY'RE PARKING OUT THERE AND YEAH, EXACTLY. 
          AND I, YEAH, THAT'S, UH, THAT'S PRETTY BIG OVERSIGHT FOR US. 
          NOT THINKING ABOUT THAT. 
          WHEN THAT CAME THROUGH THE FIRST TIME, IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE IT FRONT ON THE STREET AND ALL OF THE PARKING BEHIND, THEY SHOULD HAVE, WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD HAVE HAD PARALLEL PARKING ALONG. 
          THEY SHOULD'VE HAD TO BUILD PARALLEL PARKING, I GUESS. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DOES WITH THE DRAINAGE DITCH, BUT THERE WOULD HAVE HAD TO IMPROVE THE ROAD. 
          SURE. 
          THE BLUE LINE REPRESENTS THE PROPERTY LINE 
          [01:20:01]
AND THAT THIS IS RIGHT OF WAY WHERE THE DITCHES. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT WE HAVE, UM, WE ARE SENDING OUT WEEKLY NOTICES TO THE RESIDENTS TO NOT PARK IN THAT DITCH. 
          SO WE WE'RE ALREADY DOING THAT. 
          UH, WE DO NOT WANT THEM THERE. 
          UM, IT'S KINDA HARD TO SEE, BUT THERE ARE SIDEWALKS EVERY IN BETWEEN THE UNITS, EVERY BUILDINGS, EVERY OTHER BUILDING FOR THEM TO PARK IN THE PARKING LOT AND WALK. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT BASIC HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY IS GOING TO TELL YOU THEY'RE NOT STOPPED. 
          THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO DO IT. 
          WHAT'S YOUR ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. 
          DO YOU HAVE IT, DO YOU HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM OR DOES IT SAY PLEASE DON'T PARK? WELL, WELL, WE, WE DON'T BECAUSE IT'S A CITY STREET, SO WE CAN'T ENFORCE IT, BUT WE'VE JUST PLEADED WITH THEM TO NOT PARK THERE BECAUSE IT'S UNSIGHTLY AND THERE'S NO CURB ON THAT. 
          THERE'S NO CURB ON HORSE  CROSS SECTION. 
          THE CITY COULD PASS AN ORDINANCE OF NO PARKING IN THAT AREA. 
          COULD THEY NOT? I WOULD THINK SO. 
          THAT WOULD BE THE EASIEST THING TO DO AND THEN ADD SOME ENFORCEMENT TO IT. 
          I DON'T THINK SO. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. 
          I'D LIKE TO AMEND MARSHALL'S, UH, MOTION, IF HE WILL BE AMENABLE TO IT, THAT WE RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY PASSED AN ORDINANCE TO PUT NO PARKING IN FRONT OF THESE. 
          I, I, I'M NOT SURE THAT I PERSONALLY FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING A ZONING RECOMMENDATION. 
          THAT INCLUDES THAT. 
          SO WHAT I'M HAPPY TO DO IS WITHDRAW MY MOTION AND LET YOU MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT IF YOU'D LIKE TO. 
          WELL, I LIKED YOUR MOTION. 
          I JUST LIKED MY ADDITION. 
          I HEAR YOU. 
          I'M JUST SAYING ME PERSONALLY. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT I FEEL COMFORTABLE ADDING PARKING IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO A ZONING CASE ON A PROPERTY. 
          I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING, WE ALL AGREE. 
          IT'S A PROBLEM. 
          IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. 
          I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I AGREE WITH YOU THERE, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT ZONING IS THE BEST WAY TO SOLVE THAT. 
          I WOULD BE AMENABLE TO JUST SIMPLY ASKING MRS. GRIFFIN TO PRESENT THIS AS SHE DID. 
          MR. HANDS, A SUGGESTION AT COUNCIL THAT THEY CONSIDER THIS. 
          I HAVE NO. 
          WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THAT IN BOTH A TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN AND, UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE CITY HAD TO GO BACK AND REVIEW THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF IT. 
          THERE ARE A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE PARKING ISSUES WHERE PEOPLE ARE PARKING RIGHT NEXT. 
          UM, MY NEIGHBORHOOD THERE'S BEEN TWO ISSUES WHERE A FIRE VEHICLE COULD NOT MAKE IT TO A PERSON'S HOUSE BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE WERE PARKED IN THE STREET AND THERE, THIS IS WHY BOTH THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BROUGHT THAT UP. 
          AND I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE. 
          DID MAYBE WE RECOMMEND A CITY, A SEPARATE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY ADD THIS TO THE LIST OF ITEMS THAT THEY NEED TO EXAMINE, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT, THAT FOR PARKING THERE WITH A DITCH. 
          AND, UH, THE, THE ONLY WAY THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION TO THAT EFFECT WOULD BE TO ASK MRS. GRIFFIN TO GET THAT THE NEXT AGENDA, WE CAN DISCUSS PARKING AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. 
          AND WE CAN MAKE A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL, AN ORDINANCE, A TEXTUAL AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE. 
          JUST STOP THAT. 
          THAT WOULD ALSO GIVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND ABOUT WHAT KIND OF, UM, REQUIREMENTS WE USUALLY HAVE THAT WOULD TRIGGER THAT. 
          YEAH, THAT'S FINE. 
          AND I WILL WITHDRAW MY ADDENDUM TO HIS MOTION. 
          AND BEFORE HIM, MARSHALL RUNS OVER ME AGAIN IS, UH, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A CLIENT THAT COMES IN AND SHE LIVES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND HER NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET FROM HER HAS NINE VEHICLES. 
          SHE'S NOT ABLE TO PARK ANYWHERE EXCEPT IN HER DRIVEWAY. 
          AND SHE HAS TWO OTHER PEOPLE WITH CARS. 
          IT'S A BURDEN TO HER. 
          AND I THINK THE CITY MOST DEFINITELY SHOULD ADDRESS CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE JUST BLATANTLY BEING ABUSED. 
          THIS ONE IS RIGHT HERE IS ZONING. 
          WE COULD CERTAINLY REQUIRE THEM TO BUILD A WALL. 
          THERE ARE A BIG FENCE, AND I THINK THAT'S JUST OVERKILL WHEN WE CAN ADDRESS THIS WITH AN ORDINANCE. 
          AND IF MS. GRIFFIN WOULD MAKE DUE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL FROM US, IF WE HAVE TO PUT IT ON NEXT TIME, I'M, I'M AMENABLE TO THEM. 
          W W DO WE EFFECTIVELY CONSIDER THAT MATTER? SETTLED? WE WILL HAVE THAT ON OUR NEXT AGENDA. 
          MRS. GRIFFIN. 
          GREAT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A COMMISSIONER HEINZ SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAN, ALL IN FAVOR, ALL OPPOSED PASSES FIVE TO ONE COMMISSIONER, UM, HAMPTON AGAINST. 
          AND I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ON PLANNING AND ZONING AND TELL ME IF I'M WRONG HERE WAS HAPPY THAT THE SITUATION CAME UP AND WE SURE DON'T WANT THIS TO BE A PRECEDENT GOING FORWARD. 
          [01:25:03]
THAT'S A, THAT'S A MAJOR CONCERN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'RE 
          [12. Discuss and consider action on Subdivision Case 20-PP-029 to approve the Hawkes Landing North Phase 2 Preliminary Plat on a portion of a parcel of land approximately 66.17 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcel R031685; and to the southwest of the intersection of Bagdad Road and Halsey Drive, on the south side of Bagdad Road; Leander, Williamson County, Texas. Staff Presentation 	Discussion 	Consider Action]
ON TO ITEM NUMBER 12, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION ON SUBDIVISION CASE 20 PPE ZERO TWO NINE TO APPROVE THE HAWKS LANDING NORTH PHASE TWO PRELIMINARY PLAT ON THE PORT PORTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND, APPROXIMATELY 66.17 ACRES IN SIZE AND TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF BAGHDAD ROAD. 
          AND HALSY DRIVE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BAGHDAD ROAD. 
          THE ANDREW WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS STAFF PRESENTATION IS MICHAEL  PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          SO THIS REQUEST IS THE SECOND STEP IN THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS. 
          UH, THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT INCLUDES 130 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, ONE HOA, LOT AT THREE PUBLIC PARKLAND LOTS. 
          AND THIS REQUEST INCLUDES THE REMOVAL OF TWO HERITAGE TREES FOR A TOTAL OF 68 INCHES. 
          THE PLAN INCLUDES A PAYMENT FOR THE TREE REMOVAL FEE OF $20,400 OR $300 PER CALIPER INCH. 
          AND THOSE TREES, UH, ARE LOCATED RIGHT HERE. 
          THERE'S A 29 INCH MS. SKEET. 
          AND THEN OVER HERE IS THE 39 INCH LIVE OAK. 
          I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, OR I GUESS NO PROBLEM HERE. 
          NOPE. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          SO WE'RE ONTO DISCUSSION, UH, COMMISSIONER HOLMES. 
          YOU WANT TO START, I'LL JUST LET YOU KNOW, I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS. 
          UH, THIS IS, UH, JUST BASIC STREET LAYOUT. 
          THERE AREN'T A LOT OF HERITAGE TREES I CAN SEE. 
          ABSOLUTELY NO EFFORT WAS MADE HERE TO PROTECT THESE. 
          SO I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS ONE COMMISSIONER STYLES. 
          THE TWO HERITAGE TREE IS ONE OF THEM. 
          I'M A STATE. 
          IS THAT, AM I HEARING THAT CORRECTLY? YES, REALLY. 
          WE'RE GOING TO PROTECT MUSKY TREES. 
          SO THE MOSQUITO IS LISTED IN THE AUSTIN GROW GREEN GUIDE AND WE FOLLOW LEANDRA PREFERRED PLANT LIST AND THE AUSTIN GROUP GREEN BAY. 
          WELL, I REMEMBER MY FATHER WHEN WE WERE TAKING THE ESCAPES OUT OF ABOUT 20 ACRES OF OUR PASTURE. 
          AND THERE WERE SEVERAL BIG MOSQUITOES BACK THERE AND HE WANTED TO PRESERVE THEM. 
          AND THE PEOPLE THAT WERE TAKING HIM OUT SAID, WE NEED TO REMIND YOU THAT WHEN THEY GROW THEIR BEANS, THE CATTLE ARE GOING TO EAT THEM BECAUSE THEY LIKE THEM. 
          THEY DO. 
          AND THEY'RE GOING TO PLANT MOSQUITOES ALL OVER EVERYWHERE. 
          AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, MOSQUITO IS A NUISANCE. 
          IT TREMENDOUSLY DRAINS THE WATER TABLE WHEN IT'S OUT THERE AND TO PROTECT THEM IS, GOES AGAINST ALL REASONING. 
          UH, LEAVE HIM THERE. 
          THE DEER ARE GONNA COME OUT THERE AND I'M GOING TO SKIP, SPREAD THESE THINGS. 
          WHY DON'T WE PROTECT, UH, SOME OTHER NUISANCE TREES ALSO. 
          I MEAN, THEY'VE ALL GOT REASONS TO BE THERE. 
          GOD PUT THEM ON HERE, BUT, UH, I'M NOT REAL FOND OF PROTECTING A MUSKY TREE. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'VE GOT. 
          MR. HAMPTON, UM, COLLECT THE FEE THAT GOES ALONG WITH TAKING AWAY THESE TWO TREES. 
          I'LL JUST SAY PUBLICLY. 
          I WISH IT WAS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER BECAUSE I LIKE TREES. 
          SO, BUT I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CARLSBERG. 
          UM, I THINK I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HAMPTON QUITE A BIT ON THAT. 
          UH, I ALSO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HINES. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT A LOT OF FORETHOUGHT WENT INTO LAYING OUT THE STREETS. 
          UM, AND I FIND THAT UNFORTUNATE, MR. MOON, NO ME. 
          I THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU WOULD BRING UP THE PRICE, THE FEES. 
          UM, WE HAVE A LOT OF NEEDS IN THE CITY, UH, ESPECIALLY FOR SPORTS FIELDS GO A LONG WAY FOR THAT. 
          UH, AND AS MUCH AS I LOVE TREES, UM, I THINK WE ALSO HAVE TO PUT IN A BALANCE WHAT WE CAN DO TO SAVE THE TREES VERSUS WHAT THE NEEDS ARE FOR HOUSING AND WHAT IT COSTS THE DEVELOPER TO, UM, TO SAVE THOSE TREES AND HOW, HOW MANY TREES WERE SAVED 
          [01:30:01]
VERSUS, SO IT SHOULD BE IF YOU HAVE THE PACKET ON PAGE 16 AND MINE'S A LITTLE HARD TO READ, IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, BETWEEN EIGHT TO 18, THE INCHES THAT WERE RETAINED IS 1434. 
          AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE 18 TO 26 IS 82 INCHES. 
          AND THEN, UH, THE HERITAGE TREE, THEY HAVE, I THINK THAT'S ONE 26, BUT YEAH, I'VE GOT A BIG YEAR. 
          AND ALSO FOR THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES, IT SAYS THERE WERE A TOTAL OF SIX THEY'RE PROTECTING THEY'RE PRESERVING FOR AND REMOVING TWO. 
          NO. 
          SO THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST, UH, THE WATTS FAMILY TRUST. 
          OKAY. 
          NO, I JUST 40 INCH LIVE OAK IS YEAH. 
          HURTS MY HEART A BIT. 
          YOU KNOW, JUST THE, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT ONE UP. 
          CAUSE THE CONFUSING THING ABOUT THAT IS IT'S BEHIND THE PROPERTY. 
          IT'S IN THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT, WHICH I PRESUME MEANS THAT WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON DOING IS A BUNCH OF MASS GRADING OVER THERE TO CHANGE THE LEVEL. 
          IS THAT A REASONABLE GUESS? MS. GRIFFIN? I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY ELSE YOU'D REMOVE A TREE THAT'S BEHIND THE PROPERTY LINE HERE. 
          HE COULD ANSWER. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          DO YOU WANT TO COME UP? UM, MAYBE CHRIS LYNCH WITH THAT AGAIN HELPS. 
          I CAN CERTAINLY I CAN ADDRESS A COUPLE OF COMMENTS I'VE HEARD. 
          UM, WELL, ONE, I HATE LOOKING AT THIS. 
          IT'S SUCH A ZOOMED IN FASHION. 
          I'M NOT LOOKING INTO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE SOUTH AND THEN KIND OF OUR OVERALL PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY, INCLUDING THIS PIECE OF A PIECE. 
          WE UP TO THE NORTH ON THE OTHER SIDE OF OUR DRAINAGE WAY IN A PIECE WE HAVE OFF, UM, OFF BAGHDAD ROAD. 
          SO, UH, THE EXISTING PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS A SUBDIVISION CALLED HAWKS LANDING. 
          SO ARE WE TIMES THAT STEAM STREET PATTERN? SO WE DIDN'T HA IT WAS A LOT OF ROOM TO KIND OF MANEUVER WITH THAT BECAUSE TO THE NORTHEAST OF US AND TO THE WEST IS DIVINE LAKE. 
          SO WE WERE KIND OF PINCHED WITH A DRAINAGE AREA AND KIND OF HONORING THE EXISTING ROAD LAYOUT THAT WAS THERE. 
          UM, ONE OF THE HERITAGE TREES I BELIEVE IS LOCATED IN A RIGHT AWAY. 
          SO AGAIN, WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT MUCH ROOM TO MOVE THE STREETS AROUND TO GET IT. 
          AND THE ONE ON THE OUTSIDE, WE DO HAVE TO HAVE A PUE TO, UH, TO CAPTURE A DRAINAGE AND GET OUR DRAINAGE TO OUR POND. 
          SO YES, USUALLY IF I DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT PEEWEE, WE'D HAVE TAKEN OUR PROPERTY LINE ON THOSE UNITS ALL THE WAY TO THE FAR WEST, BUT WE DO HAVE TO CAPTURE ANY KIND OF OFFSITE DRAINAGE AND KEEP IT FROM DRAINING ONTO FUTURE PROPERTY TO THE WEST. 
          SO THAT WAS THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON THERE. 
          SO IT'S NOT JUST A PUBLIC UTILITIES. 
          I MEAN, YOU'RE USING IT AS A DRAINAGE AREA. 
          THAT'S A FULL DRAIN. 
          IT IS WE'RE WE, WE CAN'T DRAIN OFFSITE. 
          WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO GET EVERYTHING UP TO OUR PONDS, WHICH ARE LOCATED TO THE NORTH AND NORTHEAST. 
          SO IT'S US TRYING TO NOT HAVE ANY OF THOSE LOTS DRAIN OFF THEIR SITE TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO CAPTURE IT AND KEEP ALL THAT, THAT FLOWS IN THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          I MEAN, GIVEN WHERE THAT TREE IS, I, I, I, I THINK THIS GOES BACK TO THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAD WITH THE, UH, PREVIOUS ZONING CASE WHERE WE APPROVED A PHASE ONE, OR I DID WHATEVER, WHAT YOU APPROVE PHASE ONE, PHASE TWO PHASE THREE. 
          AND WE DIDN'T LOOK AT PHASE FOUR AND PHASE FIVE, AND YOU HAVE A STRAIGHT ALIGNMENT HERE. 
          THAT'S GOING NORTH AND SOUTH THERE. 
          YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS STREET, THAT'S ON THE FAR WESTERN SIDE, RIGHT? WHAT DOES THAT, I CAN'T READ IT FROM HERE. 
          LANDING LANE, UH, CONTINUES NORTH FROM THE PREVIOUS SUBDIVISION AND YOU'RE, UH, YOU ALSO HAVE THE ISSUE WITH THE WATER DRAINS. 
          WE CAN'T ALLOW THEM TO DRAIN WATER UNDER THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. 
          I MEAN, I GUESS THE THING THAT'S CONFUSING ABOUT THAT, UM, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TOPOLOGY COMPLETELY, BUT I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT THE TOP OLOGY LINES HERE. 
          AND SINCE EVERYTHING OF COURSE IS DRAINING TO THE NORTH TOWARD THE CREEK, I'M CONFUSED WHY THAT THE, THE, THE IMPERVIOUS COUPLE WHY THEY WOULDN'T DRAIN FORWARD UNDER THE STREET INTO THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, WHICH WOULD THEN WITHIN THAT DRAIN INTO THE DETENTION. 
          [01:35:01]
TYPICALLY WHEN YOU BUILD A HOUSE IT'S SLOPED IN THE FRONT AND BACK AND SIDES AWAY FROM THE HOUSE TO BRING WATER AWAY FROM THE HOUSE. 
          SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PORTION OF THE WATER RUNNING OFF TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. 
          AND WHEN YOU'RE ADJOINING ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THIS, YOU CAN'T JUST ALLOW THE ENTIRE ROW OF HOUSES THERE TO DRAIN WATER INTO THE LOTS OF YOUR NEIGHBORS. 
          AND SO WHERE DO YOU CAPTURE THAT WATER? YOU CAN'T, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET THE WATER FROM THE BACKYARD TO THE STREET. 
          WELL, ULTIMATELY MY POINT WAS BASICALLY THAT THE STRAIGHT NETWORK, I MEAN, SURE, OKAY. 
          THEY HAVE CONNECTION POINTS, BUT THE SUPPOSITION THAT THE STREET NEEDS TO GO EXACTLY IN THAT DIRECTION AFTER THE CONNECTION POINT. 
          I MEAN, WE'VE SEEN HUNDREDS OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT MOVE AROUND AFTER THE CONNECTION POINT. 
          SO, UM, I GUESS MY THOUGHT, SO YOU'RE GRADING THE AREA IN THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT TO CREATE A DRAINAGE DITCH HEADING NORTH. 
          THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE DOING. 
          AND THAT SPACE BEHIND THE LOTS, I BELIEVE WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS THEY'RE LEAVING ROOM FOR THAT. 
          AND IN CASE WE NEED, I MEAN, THIS IS JUST THE PRELIMINARY PLAT STAGE. 
          WE'RE NOT, I MEAN, WE'RE JUST STARTING THE, THE ENGINEERING DESIGN OF IT. 
          SO NOT THERE YET, BUT YOU CAN SEE TO THE SOUTH, THERE'S AN EXISTING DRAINAGE KIND OF SAME THING ON THE HAWKS LANDING SECTION FIVE. 
          SO THE ASSUMPTION IS WE GOT TO HAVE TO KEEP THAT SAME THING GOING THROUGH THIS, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY B SECTION SIX. 
          SO WE JUST LEFT ROOM FOR THAT TO ALLOW, YOU KNOW, ANY WORK THAT NEEDS TO GO THERE, BUT WE'RE NOT THERE YET WHERE THIS IS JUST THE PRELIMINARY PLAT STAGE. 
          I MEAN, HONESTLY, WE PREFER TO KEEP AS MANY AS WE CAN. 
          I MEAN, WE'VE DONE THIS PLENTY IN LANDER. 
          WE'VE GONE OUT OF OUR WAY TO HONOR AND AVOID TAKING DOWN HERITAGE TREES. 
          WE DID THAT IN HOMESTEAD, DRAMATICALLY MOVING STREETS AROUND TRYING TO AVOID IT. 
          SO WE DID OUR BEST HERE. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, WITH, I HATE SEEING THAT 50 ZOOMED OUT, YOU'D SEE, WE'RE KIND OF TIMED TO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, HERE AND PART OF THIS LITTLE DOG, LIKE WHERE THEY ARE IS A TREE BEING SAVED. 
          IT GOES OUT AND IS ACTUALLY CUTS ACROSS FROM DIVINE LAKE. 
          AND IT'S ACTUALLY THE CITY'S ACCESS POINT TO THEIR DIVINE LAKE PARK. 
          AND PART OF THAT IS THAT'S ALL GOING TO BE GIVEN TO THE CITY AND EVENTUALLY WHAT THE VINE LAKE, WHICH IS PART OF LIKE A BIGGER PROJECT THAT WE'VE GOT ON ADDITIONAL ACREAGE IS PART OF THIS. 
          BUT LIKE I SAID, YOU'RE SO ZOOMED IN HERE, YOU WERE REFERRING TO THAT ONE IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND, UH, AREA OF THIS PARTICULAR MAP, THAT'S ON THE ELBOW. 
          YOU CAN, YEAH. 
          YOU SEE THAT SLIGHT GREEN LINE THAT GOES ALL THE WAY UP TO BAGHDAD. 
          SO THAT, THAT IS EXISTING. 
          NOW THAT LITTLE STRIP RIGHT THERE IS GOING TO GO TO THE CITY THAT GIVES YOU NO, YOU HAVE FEE SIMPLE ACCESS TO THE PARK. 
          YEAH. 
          WE HAVE THE YELLOW AND THE ORANGE ON OUR CONTRACT AS WELL. 
          AND YOU'LL BE SEEING PRELIMINARY PLATS FOR THOSE AS WELL. 
          UM, WITH THE VINE LAKE SITTING KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THAT. 
          AND AGAIN, THE SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH, MOST OF THAT'S BUILT OUT. 
          I THINK THIS MAPS A LITTLE OLD, THE PLAT FOR HAWKS FIVE HAS BEEN RECORDED, UM, FINISHING OUT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND WE DID REMOVE SOME LOTS OF IN HOTSPOT TO BUILD A PARK, KNOWING WE HAD THIS, THIS ADDITIONAL ACREAGE ON TO BUILD A LARGER PARK FOR THE OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND THE PLAN IS TO REMOVE THOSE TREES ARE ALREADY GONE. 
          THEY'RE NOT ALREADY GONE. 
          AND WE HAVE IT ON HERE. 
          IF WE GET THROUGH THE, THE, THE ENGINEERING PROCESS, THEY DON'T NEED TO BURN IT. 
          WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THEM OUT. 
          BUT THE ASSUMPTION IS WE HAVE TO CONTINUE THAT DRAINAGE TO THE NORTH, THAT TREES IN THAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT. 
          SO THAT'S WHY IT'S ON HERE LIKE THAT. 
          OBVIOUSLY, IF WE GET IN THERE AND IF THAT THING'S 20 FEET WIDE AND I'M BUILDING A FIVE FOOT CHANNEL, I'M NOT WIPING THAT WHOLE THING OUT. 
          YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO MAINTAIN AS MUCH AS THAT AS POSSIBLE, CAUSE YOU'RE TO HAVE A NICE TREE BUFFER BETWEEN US AND THE WEST. 
          CAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF OUR SUBDIVISION. 
          AND SO WE DID, AND BACK TO THE, THERE, WE DID HAVE AN AREA, WE KIND OF, WE AVOIDED A LOT TO SAVE A TREE AND THE OTHER ONE'S COMING OUT OF THE MESQUITE. 
          AGAIN, WE DIDN'T REALLY THINK OF MOSQUITOES, THE TREES WE SAVED. 
          UM, AND IT'S MOSTLY LOCATED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. 
          UM, BUT THE OTHER ONES, WE KIND OF ADJUSTED LOTS SLIGHTLY TO GET IT IN THE SIDE YARD, THIS ONE IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER. 
          I MEAN, THAT IS PART OF AN HOA TRACK. 
          IT SITS THERE TO AVOID THE TREE. 
          WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T LOCK IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE CORNER. 
          I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ONE SECOND. 
          SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MAY A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, ALL IN FAVOR, ALL OPPOSED. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          SIX, FIVE TO ONE. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          MOVE ON TO ITEM. 
          NUMBER 13, 
          [13.  Discuss the Public Outreach requirements listed in the Composite Zoning Ordinance, Leander, Williamson and Travis Counties, Texas.]
DISCUSS THE PUBLIC OUTREACH REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN THE CABASA ZONING ORDINANCE. 
          THE ANDREW WILLIAMSON COUNTY AND TRAVIS COUNTIES, TEXAS. 
          ALL RIGHT, GOOD EVENING. 
          COMMISSION JUSTIN HUNT WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          I'M HERE TONIGHT TO BRING UP THE TOPIC OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROCESS AND ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS THIS PROCESS MOVING FORWARD. 
          SO I'M GOING TO GO OVER SOME OF THE CURRENT 
          [01:40:02]
ASPECTS OF THIS PROCESS. 
          CURRENTLY DURING THE ZONING PROCESS, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THE PROJECT AND COMPLETE THE NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH SUMMARY FORM AND THE ZONING APPLICATION, ALL RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES WITHIN 500 FEET, AS WELL AS ANY ORGANIZED HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONTACTED. 
          IF THERE ARE NO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN 500 FEET, THEN THE ADDITIONAL NOTICE IS NOT REQUIRED. 
          THE PURPOSE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY REQUIREMENT IS TO EDUCATE THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE ISSUES OR CONCERNS FROM SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 
          THE PROCESS IS INTENDED TO RAISE AWARENESS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO IDENTIFY ISSUES REGARDING PERCEIVED IMPACTS AND TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES IN AN INCLUSIVE MANNER. 
          THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUMMARY REPORT SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR HIS, OR HER DESIGNEE 14 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. 
          SO IT CAN BE ATTACHED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PACKET. 
          WE ASKED THAT THE REPORT DESCRIBES HOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS NOTIFIED ABOUT THE PROPOSAL, HOW, AND WHEN NOTIFICATION OCCURRED AND WHO WAS NOTIFIED, INCLUDING THE ADDRESS THAT, UH, THEY WERE NOTIFIED, UM, HOW THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROPOSAL WAS SHARED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS, WAS IT MELD WITH WHERE THEIR WORKSHOPS MEETINGS, ET CETERA, UH, OPEN HOUSES, FLYERS, UH, WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION, INCLUDING THE NAME, ADDRESS AND CONTACT INFORMATION WHERE ANY CONCERNS, UH, RAISED BY THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND ANY CONDITIONS THAT WERE ADDED TO, OR MODIFIED WITHIN THE ZONING REQUEST IN RESPONSE TO THE CONCERNS RAISED AT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING IN THE TIME THAT WE HAVE BEEN REQUESTING THIS INFORMATION, WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY HAD THIS ITEM COME IN LATE AND COMPLETE, UM, OR NOT AT ALL. 
          AND WE HAVE HAD, UH, GOOD EXAMPLES AS WELL. 
          UM, WE WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM AND ANY UPDATES TO THIS ITEM YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN OUR ORDINANCE. 
          SOME STAFF IDEAS, UH, WOULD INVOLVE INCLUDING THIS AS A REQUIREMENT FOR SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION. 
          WE BELIEVE ADDING THIS ITEM AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL COULD HELP RAISE AWARENESS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND IDENTIFY ANY ISSUES REGARDING PERCEIVED IMPACTS AND, UH, RESOLVE THE ISSUES IN AN INCLUSIVE MANNER BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL MEETINGS. 
          UH, SOME AREAS OF CONCERN REGARDING THIS IDEA, UM, ARE POTENTIAL INFLUX OF QUESTIONS REGARDING A PROJECT THAT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY. 
          UH, SO WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE OWNERS AND NEIGHBORS OR THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THE SPECIFIC PROJECT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY. 
          AND WE THINK, UH, HAVING THE APPLICANT INCLUDE THE CITY ON ALL OUTREACH EMAILS AND NOTIFICATIONS WOULD ALLOW US TO PROACTIVELY PREVENT THIS. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR THIS ITEM AND I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, UH, BUT THIS WOULD BE THE COMMISSION'S TIME TO DISCUSS THIS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I LIKED THAT, UH, REAL MAKING THE REQUIREMENTS SUBMIT AN APPLICATIONS. 
          YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE, UH, AND THAT, THAT REMOVES ANY QUOTE PUNITIVE, UH, DAMAGES, IF YOU WILL, YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW DO WE FIND THEM? YOU KNOW, DO WE DELAY THE CASE? WHATEVER, DON'T LET THEM SUBMIT IT UNLESS YOU HAVE, UH, OUTREACH DONE. 
          UM, MY, MY ONLY CONCERN WITH IS SO FAR 99% OF THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE RESIDENTS WHEN READING THE PACKET. 
          AND LIKE, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, I'VE BEEN ON PLANNING AND ZONING FOR A YEAR AND A HALF. 
          AND I READ THESE THINGS EVERY WEEK. 
          I DO TONS OF RESEARCH INTO IT, AND I FEEL LIKE I'M ABOUT HALFWAY FAMILIAR WITH IT. 
          I'M NOWHERE NEAR WHERE MARSHALL IS. 
          AND I, I APPRECIATE HAVING, UH, COMMISSIONER HINES ON HERE BECAUSE HE KNOWS THE ORDINANCES. 
          UM, BUT OUR RESIDENTS DON'T, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UM, IN ONE OF THE CASES WE HEARD TONIGHT WHERE THEY HAD TO COME BACK WAS THEY, THEY ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT APARTMENT BUILDINGS WERE COMING IN THERE BECAUSE OF THE TYPE TWO ARCHITECTURAL OR WHATEVER THAT APPLIED TO A MULTIFAMILY WHEN THERE WEREN'T ANY MULTI-FAMILY GOING IN THERE. 
          SO I KNOW WE HAVE TO HAVE THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS DONE, BUT SOME SIMPLIFIED STATEMENT OF FACT DO WOULD GO IN THERE SO THAT THE RESIDENT CAN SIT THERE, PICK IT UP AND READ IT AND THEY SAY, OH, 
          [01:45:01]
THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD. 
          UM, BUT I, I THINK IT HAS DONE WELL UP TO THIS POINT, UH, COMMISSIONER MEHAN NO, I, I, I ALSO AGREE. 
          I LIKE HAVING THAT AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PACKET, BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T IMPACT THE SHOT CLOCK OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT MIGHT, THAT WE MIGHT GET DINGED ON AS WELL WITH HAVING TO, HAVING TO BOOK PENALTIES AFTER IT'S ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR IT, BUT MY CONCERNS ARE EXACTLY LIKE YOURS. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER MAVEN IN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER'S GETTING SENT OUT IS, UM, CONSUMABLE BY THE AVERAGE RESIDENT WHO HASN'T SENT HOME PLANNING AND ZONING FOR YEARS ON END AND DOESN'T KNOW THIS, UM, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S GOING TO HELP THEM, THE MORE CLEAR WE CAN BE WITH WHAT'S GOING IN AND WHAT IT, HOW IT IMPACTS THEM, UM, ET CETERA, THE BETTER IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE BETTER IT'S GOING TO BE RECEIVED. 
          AND AS COMMISSIONER COSTCO SAID EARLIER, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS, THEY USUALLY END UP WITH A BETTER PRODUCT. 
          AND SO IT ACTUALLY IS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE DEVELOPERS AS WELL. 
          THEY DON'T, THEY MIGHT NOT REALIZE IT AT FIRST, BUT, UM, BUT I THINK THIS IS A GOOD THING, RIGHT? COMMUNICATION, UH, TRANSPARENCY IS ALWAYS A GOOD THING. 
          WHAT'S YOUR PASSWORD. 
          YEAH. 
          I AGREE WITH, WITH WHAT YOU BOTH SAID, I THINK, UM, IT BELONGS IN THE APPLICATION. 
          ALL RIGHT, THAT'S A GREAT PLACE FOR THIS DEBASE OR WE'RE NOT WAITING ON IT. 
          WE'RE NOT, NOT GETTING IT IT'S WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD ONE INCH WITHOUT IT. 
          AND SECOND, I ALSO AGREE WITH IT IF, WHEN WE'RE STAFFED ACCORDINGLY, THAT IF WE COULD, UM, PART OF WHAT SHOULD BE IN THAT INFORMATION THAT GOES OUT TO RESIDENTS SHOULD BE A LAYMAN'S EXPLANATION OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. 
          RIGHT. 
          I KNOW WHAT IT IS BECAUSE I LOOK AT THESE EVERY WEEK. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK THAT YOU COULD ASK MY WIFE THE SAME THING AND SHE WOULD HAVE THE SAME RESPONSE AND THAT, AND THAT'S REASONABLE. 
          AND SO IF WE'RE NOT GETTING INFORMED FEEDBACK FROM THE RESIDENTS, WHAT'S THE POINT ANYWAY, RIGHT? SO THAT, THAT DOESN'T WANT THAT. 
          MR. HAMPTON, NO, NOTHING FURTHER. 
          THEY SAID, COMMISSIONER STYLISTS, THERE IS NO PENALTY IF THEY DON'T COMPLY. 
          AND THAT IS A BIG CONCERN. 
          I THINK THIS IS A WONDERFUL TOOL. 
          I AGREE WITH IT A HUNDRED PERCENT. 
          AND I HAVE SEEN A CASE COME UP HERE WHERE THERE WAS A H OH EIGHT THAT WAS NOT WRITTEN. 
          MERLE REACHED OUT TO, AND THE STAFF WASN'T AWARE OF THE HOA IS EXISTENCE. 
          EVEN THOUGH I'D BEEN THERE FOR 35 YEARS, IT'S NOT A VERY ACTIVE ONE, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE CAME TO ME. 
          A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE ARE MY FRIENDS AND CLIENTS THAT COME IN AND SAY, WHAT IN THE WORLD IS GOING ON? WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS AND WAS THIS WENT ON ALL THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. 
          SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A PENALTY IF THEY DO NOT COMPLY WITH THIS. 
          OTHERWISE IT'S JUST A WONDERFUL SUGGESTION THAT THEY CAN IGNORE. 
          IT WILL. 
          AND MY SUGGESTION ON THIS IS IF THEY DON'T COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT, WE STOP THE PROCEDURE UNTIL THEY DO. 
          IT'S NOT A DIFFICULT THING TO DO. 
          WE CAN STOP IT FOR TWO WEEKS. 
          THEY COULD GO TAKE CARE OF THIS. 
          IT PUTS THE ONUS ON THEM. 
          WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS WE'RE PUTTING THE ONUS ON THE STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS ALL DONE. 
          AND IF THEY DO COME TO US AND SAY, GOSH, WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS. 
          THERE IS NO OTHER PENALTY FOR IT. 
          AND I GOT TO LISTEN TO ABOUT 35 PEOPLE OUT THERE AND HONEYCOMB HOLLIS THAT DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON AT ALL. 
          AND I HEARD FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE THEY'RE LIKE, WE DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS AN HOA. 
          WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THERE WERE PEOPLE LIVING OUT THERE. 
          SO THERE NEEDS TO BE A MECHANISM TO WHERE, IF THIS HAPPENS, THIS STOPS, WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR TWO WEEKS. 
          AND IF WE DO THAT, MAYBE THEY'LL TAKE THIS THING SERIOUSLY. 
          AND THEY SHOULD. 
          AND MY SUGGESTION FOR THE PENALTY IS TO MAKE THEM PLANT TO MESQUITE TREES AND EVERYTHING KNOW. 
          SO, SO COMMISSIONER STYLES, IF I'M, IF I'M CORRECTING, HEARING YOU, UM, I MEAN THE PENALTY IS THAT DOESN'T GET IT. 
          DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T START THE PROCESS IF THEY HAVEN'T DONE THIS, IF WE PUT IT AS A PART OF THE APPLICATION, BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IF WE FIND OUT LATER ON THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, THAT, THAT WE MISS SOMEONE, OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT THEN WE STOP UNTIL THAT NOTIFICATION DOES HAPPEN. 
          SO WE ACTUALLY DO IT AND DO IT CORRECTLY. 
          THE PROCESS IS VERY SIMPLE. 
          YOU REACH OUT TO EVERYONE WITHIN 200 FEET THAT HAS PROPERTY 
          [01:50:01]
500 FEET FOR ANY HOA. 
          WE DID NOT DO THAT WITH HONEYCOMB HILLS. 
          I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I TALKED TO THE HEAD OF THE HOA AND HE HAD NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON. 
          I TALKED TO DOZENS OF PEOPLE THAT WERE LIKE, AND THIS WAS TOWARDS THE END OF THE PROCESS. 
          SECOND RATING GOING, WHAT IN THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE? AND THAT SLIPPED BY IT SHOULD STOP UNTIL IT'S ADDRESSED. 
          IT'S A WONDERFUL TOOL. 
          WE'RE SEEING THE FLUID THAT COMES OUT OF IT. 
          BUT THE PROBLEM IS IF THEY IGNORE IT, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO. 
          THERE'S NOTHING NOW POSSIBLY I WOULD AGREE THAT YES, THE STAFF WILL DO A WONDERFUL JOB WITH IT. 
          BUT IF SOMETHING SLIPS THROUGH, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO STOP THE PROCESS TILL WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS RECTIFIED. 
          AND I DON'T THINK IT'S IT'S, AND I HATE SEEING PEOPLE PUT OFF FOR TWO WEEKS AND THEN TWO WEEKS AND TWO WEEKS AND TWO WEEKS. 
          BUT I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ENOUGH ISSUE THAT IF IT COMES OUT THAT THEY DID A SLIPSHOD JOB OF IT AND SLIPPED IT THROUGH STAFF. 
          AND AS WE'VE SEEN BEFORE, STAFF HAS GOT A LOT AND LOTS AND LOTS OF THINGS TO DO AND TO PUT MORE ON THEIR SHOULDERS. 
          SOME OF IT NEEDS TO BE ON US. 
          IF WE FIND OUT THAT A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, PRESIDENT COMES TO ONE OF US AND SAID, WE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. 
          AND WE GO TO THE STAFF AND SAY, WE THOUGHT WE DID A GOOD JOB. 
          I HAVE NO HESITATION IN THINKING THAT THE STAFF DID A GOOD JOB, BUT IT SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS. 
          AND THERE SHOULD BE SOME KIND OF MECHANISM TO STOP IT UNTIL EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON, BECAUSE THIS HAS PROVEN TO BE A VERY, VERY GOOD TOOL FOR NOT ONLY THE CITIES, BUT FOR THE BUILDERS AND FOR THE PEOPLE AROUND THERE AS WELL. 
          AND I HAVE NO CONCERNS WITH THAT, SO DON'T GET ME WRONG. 
          BUT, UM, I WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, AS A SUGGESTION, UM, YOU KNOW, I LIKED THE IDEA OF THERE BEING A PENALTY, IF IT DOES GET BY THE APPLICATION PROCESS, BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING IT UP FRONT, UM, THERE'LL BE SOMETHING, BUT THEN I WOULD JUST WAIT UNTIL, YOU KNOW, MS. GRIFFIN HAS A CHANCE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY LEGAL REGULATORY PROBLEMS THAT WE WOULD BE CREATING BY DOING THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          I THINK THE QUESTION IS IT GOES BACK TO HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE SHOT CLOCK AND WHAT POSITION DOES THAT PUT US IN WHEN YOU'D HAVE A SHOT CLOCK WOULDN'T APPLY TO ZONING. 
          IT'S ONLY THE SUBDIVISION. 
          OKAY. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          THAT'S GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I LIKE YOUR IDEA OF LET'S PUT IN THAT EXTRA STEP, RIGHT? YEP. 
          OKAY. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY REGISTRY OF HOS WITHIN THE CITY OR WE'RE WORKING ON IT? YES. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          THAT'S A HUGE UNDERTAKING BEING A DATABASE DEVELOPER. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES BEHIND THAT, BUT THERE, THERE MAY BE SOME NEIGHBORS AND PERHAPS, UH, SOMETHING THAT GOES OUT IN OUR, UH, WATER PACKETS OR SOMETHING, THE WATER BILLS, IF WE COULD PUT A NOTICE IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT IF YOU'RE IN AN HOA AND YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED, YOU, YOU BETTER SPEAK UP AND GIVE US YOUR NAME. 
          AND, UH, CONTACT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE AND IT'S WORKED. 
          UM, BUT I, I CAN TELL YOU ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, UM, THE, THE PC THING THAT WE HAD LAST WEEK OR TWO WEEKS AGO, I KNOW THE, UM, UM, MANAGER FOR, FOR GOODWIN MANAGEMENT THAT, UH, UH, SHE FORWARDED TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THEY DIDN'T CARE AND GAVE NO RESPONSE BECAUSE I FOLLOWED UP ON THAT. 
          I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, NOTIFICATION WAS SENT AND BOTH THE BOARD WAS NOTIFIED AND A MANAGER AND THEY DIDN'T CARE. 
          EXACTLY. 
          SO I, I DON'T WANT TO PENALIZE A DEVELOPER, THE REACHES OUT IN GOOD FAITH AND DOESN'T GET ANY RESPONSE BACK, BUT I, THEY, THEY SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE ONE TO MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT. 
          AND IF IT IS PROVEN THAT PEOPLE ARE LIKE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON, WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT. 
          BUT IF THEY SIT THERE AND GO LOWER HOA TO DROP THE BALL, THEN THAT'S ON THE CITIZENS IN THAT AREA TO GET ON THE HOA. 
          THAT SHOULD NOT BE ON THEM. 
          IF THEY MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT. 
          THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME, ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS THE AFRO. 
          AND ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS WHAT IS A REALLY GOOD THING. 
          THAT'S COME OUT OF THIS P AND THREE, GET A LITTLE TEETH BEHIND IT SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE IT, AND PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION TO IT. 
          AND THE OTHER STAFF HAS SAID, BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSISTENTLY NOT GETTING IT DONE. 
          AND IF THEY DON'T, WHAT CAN WE DO TO LET'S PULL TEETH, MR. HOLMES, UH, MR. YOU, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU HAD BROUGHT UP WAS SORT OF THE, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE MIGHT END UP WITH IS THAT WE HAVE, I GUESS YOU'D CALL THEM A PERSPECTIVE APPLICANT WHO HAS A PLAN AND IS, IS AIMING TO SUBMIT A ZONING REQUEST. 
          AND THEN, UH, IF WE WERE TO REQUIRE 
          [01:55:01]
THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH TO HAPPEN BEFOREHAND, PRESUMABLY THEY'D NEED TO SEND THAT OUT. 
          I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME THEY NEED TO GET THAT OUT AND BACK SO THAT THEY CAN INCLUDE IT IN THE PACKET, BUT WHATEVER THE DELTA IS BETWEEN WHEN THEY SEND IT OUT AND WHEN THEY GET IT TO YOU, THERE'S SOME CONCERN FROM STAFF. 
          I THINK PROBABLY WELL-FOUNDED THAT STAFF MIGHT BE TRYING TO FIELD CALL SAYING, I CAN'T GIVE YOU A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE APPLICATION YET. 
          RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK I TEND TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER STYLES BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, IT'S NOT STAFF'S JOB. 
          WE SAYING YOU ARE THE PERSON COMING IN FROM OUTSIDE ASKING FOR THIS CHANGE, RIGHT? YOU'RE, YOU'RE ASKING FOR A SUBJECTIVE DECISION TO BE MADE. 
          IT SHOULD BE ON YOU, THE APPLICANT TO HANDLE ALL OF THAT COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH. 
          AND YOU SHOULD BE THE ONLY PERSON WHO SUFFERS IF YOU DON'T DO YOUR JOB, MEANING THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE THE ONLY PERSON WHO SUFFERS. 
          SO KNOW WE ALREADY HAVE THIS EXTRA SPARE WEEK BUILT IN. 
          I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE I DO UNDERSTAND THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF HAVING IT COME IN ORIGINALLY, BUT STAFF ENDS UP FIELDING A LOT OF QUESTIONS WITH THESE THINGS. 
          WHEN THEY GO OUT, IT DOESN'T GO TO THE D THE D THE DEVELOPER SUPPOSED TO GET ALL THE CONTACT, BUT THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN. 
          AND IF STAFF IS TRYING TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS AND REDIRECT 30 CALLS BACK TO THE DEVELOPER BEFORE STAFF EVEN HAS THE APPLICATION, I SEE THAT AS PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, JUST BEING A TAXING SITUATION THAT WE CREATE FOR STAFF, IT SEEMS SIMPLER TO ME TO SAY, IT'S GOTTA BE DONE 14 DAYS AHEAD OF TIME. 
          AND IF IT'S NOT, YOU GET INSTANTLY POSTPONED. 
          IT'S NOT, IT'S JUST A MINISTERIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE THING WHERE JUST GETS INTO INSTANTLY POSTPONED BECAUSE, WELL, THAT'S ONLY 72 HOURS IS REQUIRED. 
          14 DAYS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH. 
          SO I THINK, UM, PART OF OUR ISSUE IS IF WE DO A PUBLIC NOTICE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, WE CAN'T JUST NOT HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          SO THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO PAY FOR RE NOTIFICATION. 
          AND THAT'S MORE THAN A 15 DAY DELAY. 
          YOU WANT TO TALK WELL, OKAY. 
          YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT A PENALTY THAT WOULD GET PEOPLE MOVING QUICKLY. 
          IT'S THAT YOU SAY IT'S AN INSTANT POSTPONEMENT. 
          NOW YOU GUYS HAVE TO PAY TO RE NOTIFY AND IT WOULD BE NO ONE'S FAULT EXCEPT THEIR OWN. 
          SO, I MEAN, I, I THINK I WOULD TEND TO, I WOULD TEND TO SAY THAT IT'S BETTER TO JUST GIVE THEM THE TIME THAT THEY NEED TO DO IT, REQUIRE IT TWO WEEKS AHEAD OF TIME. 
          AND THEN IT'S A NON-NEGOTIABLE SITUATION WHERE IF THEY DON'T TURN IT IN BY END OF BUSINESS, DAY, 14 DAYS AHEAD OF TIME RE NOTIFY AND PUT IT ON THE NEXT MEETING, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE TO DO IT ON WHAT DOES THAT COST? SO WE HAVE, UM, THERE'S A FEE OF $250. 
          UM, JUST FOR THE RE NOTICE FEE, THEN YOU HAVE TO PAY A NEWSPAPER FEE. 
          IT'S $150, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO, UM, PAY $5 PER PERSON WITHIN, UM, 200 FEET. 
          AND HOW BIG OF A DELAY WOULD THAT CAUSE PROBABLY THAT THREE WEEKS, I'LL TELL YOU THAT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING ENOUGH TO CONVINCE PEOPLE NOT TO MESS AROUND. 
          THAT'S A BRIGHT IDEA. 
          LET ME ASK YOU A FURTHER QUESTION. 
          UH, IF THEY DO NOT PUT UP THE SIGNS FOR NOTIFICATION, WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR THAT? SAY, THEY PUT THEM UP AND, UM, THEY ALL BLOW DOWN AND THEY JUST LEAVE THEM DOWN FOR TWO WEEKS OR WHATEVER. 
          WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DON'T GIVE ADEQUATE NOTIFICATION? THE SIGNS ARE A COURTESY, SO THEY HAVE TO POST THEM. 
          BUT IF THEY FALL DOWN, THERE'S NOT A PENALTY. 
          UM, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE STAFF TO MANAGE AND TO TELL IF THE SIGNS OF FALL DOWN, FALLING DOWN. 
          IF WE FIND OUT THEY HAVE, WE DO REACH OUT TO THE APPLICANT, ASK THEM TO FIX THEM. 
          WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DON'T PUT THEM UP? UM, WELL THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO RE NOTIFY. 
          THEY USUALLY SEND US CONFIRMATION. 
          THEY HAVE TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT. 
          THAT'S NOTARIZED. 
          THEY DID IT. 
          A LOT OF THEM SEND US PICTURES OF HOW THEY POSTED THEM. 
          AND IF YOU FIND THAT THEY DID NOT, IS THERE ANY PENALTY? UM, IF THEY DIDN'T POST THE SIGNS, THEN WE HAVE TO RE NOTIFY. 
          THE OTHER PROBLEM THAT I HAVE IS WE AGAIN HAD A PART WHERE THERE WAS NOTIFICATION PUT, BUT THE PERSON THAT DID SO OWNED PROPERTY ALL SURROUNDING WHAT WAS BEING REZONED. 
          SO THE NOTIFICATION WAS NOT PUT IN A MANNER WHERE ANYBODY COULD SEE IT, EXCEPT FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          UH, WE COULD CERTAINLY HAVE PEOPLE REZONE IN A LARGER TRACT OF LAND AND PUT HIS NOTIFICATION UP AND NOBODY COULD SEE IT. 
          I WOULD CERTAINLY RECOMMEND TO THIS COMMISSION THAT WE REQUIRE THAT IF THEY ARE GOING TO NOTIFY, IT HAS TO BE PUT ON SOME KIND OF STREET WHERE PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY SEE IT. 
          I THINK THE, THE ONE YOU'RE REFERRING TO, UM, THE WAY THEY REZONED IT DIDN'T HAVE FRONTAGE ONTO A ROAD. 
          SO THERE WERE NO SIGNS REQUIRED, BUT HE OWNED PROPERTY. 
          RIGHT? RIGHT. 
          THERE'S A, THERE'S A CURE TO THAT. 
          BUT IT WAS, IT WASN'T THAT, UM, THEY PUT THE SIGNS IN THE WRONG PLACE. 
          THEY JUST WEREN'T REQUIRED AT ALL BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FRONTAGE. 
          NOBODY KNEW ABOUT IT. 
          RIGHT? MY PROBLEM IS IF THEY HAVE PROPERTY THAT IS NOT ON FRONTAGE, IT NEEDS TO BE PUT ON FRONTAGE 
          [02:00:02]
BECAUSE THIS IS THE SAME THING THAT A BID IS BEFORE ON THE NOTIFICATIONS. 
          NOBODY SAW THE SIGNS, NOBODY WAS NOTIFIED. 
          AND THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE THAT HAVE GOT A BITTER TASTE IN THEIR MOUTH, BEZOS, HOW THIS WENT THROUGH. 
          I FOUND THAT EVEN IF YOU DON'T GET WHAT YOU WANT FROM THIS COUNCIL OR THIS COMMISSION, PEOPLE ARE A LOT HAPPIER WITH THEIR CITY. 
          IF THEY FELL LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN LISTENED TO, BUT ARE WE PENALIZE IN LARGER LAND OWNERS THEN BY DOING THAT, UM, DR. 
          STYLES, BECAUSE YOU'RE, UH, MS. GRIFFIN IS SAYING THAT IT'S NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY LAND THAT WAS ON FRONTAGE. 
          SO PEOPLE WHO OWN LAND THAT HAS FRONTAGE AS WELL AS THE LAND THAT'S IN, THAT'S GETTING REZONED. 
          YES. 
          THEY COULD ABSOLUTELY PUT A SIGN UP ON FRONTAGE, BUT PEOPLE WHO DON'T, THEY HAVE NO OTHER RECOURSE. 
          SO, SO WE'RE, WE'RE TECHNICALLY THEN PENALIZING SOMEONE WHO OWNS A LOT OF LAND VERSUS SOMEONE WHO JUST OWNS THEIR INDIVIDUAL TRACT OF LAND. 
          IF THIS PROPERTY THAT'S BEING REZONED AS PART OF OUR LARGER, LARGER PARCEL THAT DOES HAVE FRONTAGE, THEN YES, THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO SO IF THEY DON'T, THEN THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO, THE ONE WE'RE DISCUSSING, OWNED ALL THE PROPERTY AROUND IT. 
          AND THEY HAD PROPERTY ON FRONTAGE. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M DISCUSSING. 
          I DON'T WANT TO PENALIZE ANYBODY THAT HAS NO ACCESS TO FURNITURE, BUT IF YOU'VE GOT FRONTAGE AND YOU'RE GAMING THE SYSTEM BY NOTIFYING RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, SO NOBODY CAN SEE IT. 
          WE'RE NOT REALLY DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE. 
          YOU CAN ADJUST YOUR ZONING BOUNDARIES, UM, WHERE, LIKE YOU'RE ONLY ZONING THE BACK HALF. 
          SO IF YOU'RE NOT ZONING THE PART THAT'S ADJACENT TO A ROADWAY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A SIGN. 
          SO IT'S KIND OF A LOOPHOLE, MAYBE LOOPHOLE WE'VE BEEN LOOPED THAT WOULD STILL REQUIRE, UM, THAT WOULD STILL REQUIRE THE MAILED NOTIFICATIONS. 
          RIGHT? YOU JUST WOULDN'T, YOU WERE SAYING IT WOULDN'T BE IT. 
          THERE WOULDN'T BE A PHYSICAL SIGN ON THE STREET. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE IN THE STREET, BECAUSE THEY WERE PHYSICALLY OUTSIDE OF THE 500 FOOT BOUNDARY, NOPE. 
          THE HLA WAS IN THE 500 FOOT BOUNDARY. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE REFERRING TO PEOPLE WHO OWN LAND, WHO WERE NOT WITHIN THE 500 FOOT BOUNDARY AND THEIR HOA DROPPED THE BALL AND NO WAS ACTUALLY WASN'T NOTIFIED. 
          THEY DIDN'T DROP ANYBODY NOTIFIED. 
          SO THEY WERE NOT WITHIN 200 FEET WHERE THE CITY HAS TO SEND THE NOTICE, BUT THEY WERE WITHIN THE 500. 
          SO THAT, AND THERE WERE NO SIGNS OUT, RIGHT? SO NOT, NOT NOTIFYING AN HOA WITHIN 500 FEET IS BREAKING THE RULES OF THE ORDINANCE. 
          NOT POSTING IT, NOT POSTING SOMETHING ON FRONTAGE, WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY IS NOT BREAKING THE RULES. 
          RIGHT? SO THE, WHERE THEY WERE REZONING, IT DID NOT HAVE FRONTAGE. 
          SO THEY DID A BACK SECTION, BUT WHAT, WHAT DR. 
          STYLES IS THE LAND AROUND IT? WHAT DR. 
          STYLES IS SAYING IS THAT THE MAILING PROCESS WAS NOT DONE CORRECTLY. 
          HE'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT FOR THE MOST PART, IT WAS, BUT IT WAS NOT SENT TO THE HOA BECAUSE THE STAFF WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS NO HOA OUT THERE. 
          AND EVEN IF THERE WAS IT, WASN'T WHAT HAD BEEN 500 FEET. 
          WE DID HAVE PEOPLE COME UP HERE TO CORRECT THAT MISCONCEPTION. 
          I SEE. 
          SO STAFF DOESN'T MAKE THE DETERMINATION ABOUT IF THERE'S AN HOA OR NOT, THAT'S THE APPLICANT IS SUPPOSED TO REACH OUT. 
          AND SO WE MISSED THE MAIL-OUT. 
          THERE WAS NO SIGNS FOR PEOPLE TO SEE IT, AND NOBODY KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON. 
          THAT'S THE PROBLEM. 
          AND THERE'S NOT MUCH THAT WE HAVE TO . 
          WELL, I, I THINK GIVEN THE ABILITY TO SAY THAT WHEN IT COMES HERE AND THEY DON'T HAVE IT DONE, THAT WE CAN MAKE THEM RE NOTIFY THAT HAS A LOT OF TEETH IN IT. 
          AND IN THE CASE WHERE THE HOA WAS NOT NOTIFIED. 
          UM, BUT, BUT THE, IN THE SAME BREATH THERE, I THINK THE HOA HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY EITHER A, THE CITY OR BE SOME AGENCY REGISTERING WITH THEM WHERE A DEVELOPER CAN EASILY GO TO AND FIND OUT WHERE ARE THE HOS AROUND AND WHO DO I NEED TO NOTIFY? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH A HUGE RECORD, OPEN RECORDS REQUEST, AND WEEKS OF WORK TO FIND OUT THAT THERE'S A HIDDEN NATURE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A WEBSITE AND ISN'T REGISTERED WITH THE CITY. 
          AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S THE CASE, BUT, BUT ATRIAL WAVES THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR 30, 35 YEARS ARE DIFFERENT CREATURES THAN HOS IS THAT YOU'RE DEPRESSED. 
          YOU'RE MUCH MORE HIGH BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LOT MORE TOOLS WHEN THEY USE GUYS STARTED 35 YEARS AGO, IT WAS PRETTY INFORMAL IN THEIR WORLD. 
          A LIMITED AMOUNT OF THINGS THEY CAN DO. 
          THEY'RE STILL 
          [02:05:01]
IN PLACE, BUT THEY'RE JUST NOT THE SAME BASE THAT Y'ALL. 
          WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHERE HAVING, UH, SOME BURDEN ON THE HOA TO REGISTER, UM, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SIX AND THE HOS THAT ARE INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, PUBLISHED WITH THE ONES THAT ARE ON THEIR HOUSE. 
          MANY OF THOSE HAVE BEEN IN PLEDGE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME, AND WE'RE NOT IN THE CITY. 
          AND NOW FIND THEMSELVES IF NOT IN THE CITY RIGHT NEXT TO THE CITY. 
          AND THEY HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT THAT ANYTHING LIKE THIS WITH THAT, AND THAT'S FROM DIRECT TALKS WITH NEW MULTIPLES IN THERE, THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT'S COME UP AND EXPOSED BACK THAT WE HAVE NO WAY TO STOP. 
          THIS BEHAVIOR COMES UP. 
          THIS MIGHT BE A ONE AND DONE THING, BUT IT HAPPENED. 
          AND IT HAPPENED WAY TOO EASILY. 
          I'D HATE TO SEE IT HAPPEN AGAIN. 
          WELL, I WILL SAY THAT I LIKED THE IDEA OF PICTURES BEING TAKEN OF WHERE IT IS LOCATED, OR AT LEAST ONCE, ONCE A WEEK OR AT ONCE EVERY THREE DAYS SINCE HIS STAFF, THAT WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHERE IT'S, WHERE IT'S AT. 
          OH, YOU'RE SAYING HAVE THEM HAVE TO REQUIRE NEW PHOTOS EVERY FEW DAYS FOR ALL OF THE PLACES WHERE THEY PLAY SIGN. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          CAUSE IT'S EASY TO KIND OF PUT ONE UP NOW AND GO, HEY. 
          YEAH. 
          CAUSE THE GROUND, AND THEN LIKE A LITTLE WIND STORM COMES ALONG AND IT BLOWS AWAY TWO SECONDS LATER. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT'S A GOOD POINT. 
          AND THERE HAVE BEEN SOME PLACES WHERE THEY WENT DOWN FOR TWO WEEKS. 
          YEAH. 
          RIGHT. 
          THEY'RE UP FOR THE FIRST DAY AND THEN NEVER UP AGAIN. 
          YES. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          ABOUT THE ONE THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT OVER THERE. 
          RIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO ARE WE DONE GIVEN THE DIRECTION TO THE SYDNEY ON THAT? YES. 
          WELL, DO WE WANT TO, I MEAN, DO WE NEED TO MAKE SOME FORMAL RECOMMENDATION TO THEM? IT'S LIKE, WE'VE GOT TO SLIGHTLY DIFFERING OPINIONS ON WHAT WE THINK HERE AS A COMMISSION ARE THE RIGHT SOLUTION. 
          THERE'S THE SUBMITTED UPFRONT, OR THEY'RE SUBMITTED THE SAME TIMEFRAME, BUT REQUIRE INSTANT POSTPONEMENT AND THE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. 
          THAT'S TO SORT OF, I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD DO BOTH OF THOSE, WOULD YOU? OH, SORRY. 
          I WAS GOING TO SAY, I THOUGHT WE WOULD STILL DO THE UPFRONT. 
          AND THEN IF WE DO FIND IT'S KIND OF THAT EXCEPTION TO THE RULE. 
          IF WE DO FIND THAT THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE DIDN'T FIND, WE IMMEDIATELY STOP IT. 
          SO WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE BAD ACTORS IN THIS. 
          WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT IF A SITUATION LIKE THE, THE, THE HONEYCOMB HEIGHTS, UH, ONE WHERE WE FIND OUT, OH, THERE'S AN HOA, SO WE STOP IT RIGHT AWAY. 
          SO THE, SO THEN WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS ROBIN, WHEN THEY, EXCUSE ME, MRS. GRIFFIN, WHEN THEY SEND OUT THE, UM, WHEN THEY SEND OUT THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY'RE, THAT THEY'RE NOTIFYING WITH, IS THERE A FORMAT THAT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO ADHERE TO? SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES RIGHT HERE. 
          UM, THIS IS WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE APPLICATION THAT WE PROVIDE. 
          UH, THIS GOES OVER KIND OF SOME OF THE ITEMS WE'RE LOOKING FOR. 
          UM, AND THEN HERE'S SOME EXAMPLES OF, UH, A COMPLETED VERSION OF THEM. 
          THESE ARE THREE DIFFERENT CASES. 
          THIS IS, THIS IS EFFECTIVELY WHAT THE APPLICANT, TH THIS IS WHAT THE, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S, WHAT SOMEBODY SAW WHEN THEY RECEIVED THIS. 
          UH, ACTUALLY, NO, THIS IS, UH, THIS IS THEM EXPLAINING WHAT THEY DID TO YOU. 
          YES, EXACTLY. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY EXAMPLES OF WHAT, OH, THIS WOULD BE A LETTER, A TYPICAL, THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE ACTUALLY SENT OUT. 
          I THINK THERE'S ONE IN TONIGHT'S PACKET. 
          I APOLOGIZE GUYS. 
          UM, FOR WHAT CASE, UM, PLEASE CONTINUE. 
          BUT THIS IS THE TYPICAL FORMAT THAT WE GET, UH, AND HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF ONE THAT WINS. 
          REMEMBER THIS ONE? YEP. 
          BONITA VERDI THAT WENT OUT BEFORE THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED, AND THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT THE RESIDENTS WERE HANDED. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          SO THIS IS ONE THAT WENT OUT BEFORE THE APPLICATION GOT TO YOU GUYS. 
          DID YOU SEE A LOT OF CONTACT BEFORE THE APPLICATION MADE IT INTO YOUR HAND ABOUT THIS CASE? YEAH. 
          NOT KNOWING WHAT WAS HAPPENING, I GUESS. 
          SO I WILL SAY UP FRONT THAT I, I D I DO DISAGREE. 
          I DON'T THINK THIS BEFORE THE APPLICATION THING IS THE RIGHT ONE, BUT IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING, I THINK THAT A FIX, BECAUSE WE, I THINK WE ALL AGREE. 
          WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CREATE UNDUE WORK FOR THE STAFF IS BY, UM, ASKING THAT THERE IS SOME FORMAT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS THAT BASICALLY SAYS, HERE WE ARE, WE'RE AN APPLICANT. 
          YOU KNOW, WHERE WE ARE, WE'RE REPRESENTING SOMEONE WHO OWNS THE LAND. 
          HERE'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO. 
          IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, CALL US, CALL US SO WE CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT. 
          [02:10:01]
UM, BECAUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF GOOD INFORMATION AND THE ABSENCE OF FEELING LIKE THEY KNOW WHERE TO GO, OF COURSE, THE MOST LOGICAL PLACE TO REACH OUT TO IS THE CITY STAFF. 
          AND I GUESS THE CITY STAFF WILL PROBABLY ALWAYS GET SOME COMMUNICATION, BUT IF YOU CAN REALLY SORT OF TRY AND FUNNEL THEM BACK TO THE DEVELOPER FIRST, THEY'RE THE ONES WITH MOST OF THE ANSWERS SINCE THE STAFF WON'T HAVE THE APPLICATION YET, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE DOING THIS AND YEAH, YEAH. 
          DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO WHAT YOU AND COMMISSIONER STYLES ARE SUGGESTING HERE. 
          IN FACT, I THINK, UM, IT'S A, A INTERESTING CONCEPT. 
          IS THAT WHAT IT REALLY PUT SOME, SOME TEETH INTO THE ORDINANCE? UM, WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING IS THAT, UM, STAFF GET TOGETHER AND BECAUSE THEIR GOAL IS THE GOAL OF BOTH OF THESE COMPETING IDEAS IS THE SAME EXACT THING. 
          THE SAME EXACT THING IS A GOAL. 
          SO I THINK BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO COMPETING IDEAS, THE PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND BEST, WHICH WILL BE THE EASIEST WAY TO IMPLEMENT IT IS STAFF. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, YEAH. 
          SO I WOULD, I WOULD LET THEM GO BACK AND SAY, YEAH, HERE'S HOW WE THINK IT WOULD BE EASIEST FOR US TO DO WHAT IT IS YOU AS A COMMISSION HAVE DIRECTED US TO GET THAT WORKS FOR ME SO THAT YOU DON'T NEED A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION. 
          THEN WE'LL JUST, WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT. 
          WE APPRECIATE ALL YOUR HARD WORK. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BEFORE YOU FINISH ON THIS, I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING EARLIER THAT COMMISSIONER HINES HAD TALKED ABOUT, UM, WITH THE DIFFERENT MASONRY STANDARDS AND SUBSTITUTIONS FOR THAT. 
          CAN WE BRING THAT BACK AS AN ITEM THAT WE DISCUSSED THAT HERE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AGAIN, TO COUNCIL ABOUT POSSIBLE SUBSTITUTES FOR SOME OF OUR MASONRY STANDARDS, I WOULD LIKE THAT AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, THE TIME IS NINE 15 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.